Canucks News and Notes

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: Canucks News and Notes

Postby ukcanuck » Sat May 03, 2014 1:52 am

Perhaps the story was different amongst general managers, but the public perception created by telling the world that manny was done and a danger to himself on the ice, created two stories. One that Gillis was a human being that cares for his players above the call of duty, which seems like a big ego stroke now. And the other, that saw manny go cap in hand and convince another team to give him one more chance.

It wasn't right. once it was deemed that cap issues were an issue- waive him or trade him or quietly put him on LTIR. Don't throw doubt on the guys ability to get back on the ice in a productive capacity.

Now that manny has played 70 games, it makes Gillis look even more like a self serving ass.
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Postby Topper » Sat May 03, 2014 2:42 am

Being medically cleared to play, as Manny was, he could not go on LTIR. The CBA does not allow it.

Manny had a toddler and a week old baby at home, he had just missed two games while the baby was born. I suspect the long term concern for his vision was real. You can not come out and make public statements that the players health is a concern when it is complete BS. The player would have plenty of recourse through the NHL and the NHLPA.

I suspect Manny's vision met a standard that a Doc would clear him to play but offer the caveat to the patient that there was high risk of long term damage with the right hit and without further healing. A bit like a player continuing on after multiple concussions. A walking skating one hit wonder.

Combine that with the need for a roster spot and Manny's 13th forward level of play and voila.
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: 4552
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Postby ukcanuck » Sat May 03, 2014 6:59 am

Topper wrote:Being medically cleared to play, as Manny was, he could not go on LTIR. The CBA does not allow it.

Manny had a toddler and a week old baby at home, he had just missed two games while the baby was born. I suspect the long term concern for his vision was real. You can not come out and make public statements that the players health is a concern when it is complete BS. The player would have plenty of recourse through the NHL and the NHLPA.

I suspect Manny's vision met a standard that a Doc would clear him to play but offer the caveat to the patient that there was high risk of long term damage with the right hit and without further healing. A bit like a player continuing on after multiple concussions. A walking skating one hit wonder.

Combine that with the need for a roster spot and Manny's 13th forward level of play and voila.


I don't think Gillis was BSing, obviously Manny had vision problems, I just think he handled Manny as an asset rather than a person. I don't fault a team for putting itself before the employee per se, but letting him go without any return would have been the selfless act that Gillis could have taken a bow for..
But to be fair maybe MG did try to move him and kept that off the public record.
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Postby Meds » Sat May 03, 2014 8:02 am

ClamRussel wrote:The main issue here was not that Malhotra was dispatched off the team, it was the line of bullshit that was fed. While I think he still should have been on the team ahead of Ebbett, you guys disagree.


The numbers disagree.....other than faceoffs.

Clam wrote:Its subjective. I am aware he wasn't playing great at the time, I believe he would have played through it and he did just that.


Over a year later, yes he did. But he ended up on a PTO with an AHL team to do it, if I'm not mistaken.

Clam wrote:I'm not even saying he'd be on the team now. If you want to believe the story that was dished out then open wide.


I don't think anyone here is suggesting they believe Gillis' line about Malhotra being "unsafe". It was a business move plain and simple.

Clam wrote:Troller has a history of tendencies towards straw man arguments so its no surprise that this conversation shifted to Manny's performance. I don't recall that factor coming up in the press conference. Arguing that his play didn't warrant being on the roster (and someone had to go) backs up my assertion that the official story doesn't pass the smell test. Only a troll can argue against someone (repeatedly) while inadvertently supporting their case.


I would say that his performance on the ice was at the center of the original decision. When Gillis said he saw Manny being blindsided and not seeing things coming the way he used to. Being unable to safely compete. How players conduct themselves on the ice is all a factor attributable to performance. You think Gillis consulted Madame Cleo or something and asked for a reading on Manny's thought process and whether or not he was mentally and physically capable of playing safely? No. He judged it all by his performance on the ice.

I'm not sure any of the rebuttals you have received here over this topic are "straw man" arguments (you use that term too much btw).....everyone here agrees that shutting him down versus trading him or waiving him was a business move to clear cap space in order to make room for Kesler's return from injury. Manny was chosen because his performance was below the level of Ebbet, Schroeder, and Lapierre, at the time. Maybe he couldn't be traded, maybe Gillis really did hope Manny would stick around and still be part of the team. Who knows the actual plan for Malhotra beyond that season. If Manny couldn't be traded then whatever, should have waived him, it was a dick move, but it was performance based.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3123
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Postby ClamRussel » Sun May 04, 2014 1:49 pm

Meds wrote:
ClamRussel wrote:The main issue here was not that Malhotra was dispatched off the team, it was the line of bullshit that was fed. While I think he still should have been on the team ahead of Ebbett, you guys disagree.


The numbers disagree.....other than faceoffs.


Do you think those numbers just mayyyybe had something to do w/ how he was being used? He wasn't playing great but he was also taking defensive zone faceoffs then being pulled off the ice the majority of the time. Ebbett's were fantastic though, right?

Meds wrote:
Clam wrote:Its subjective. I am aware he wasn't playing great at the time, I believe he would have played through it and he did just that.


Over a year later, yes he did. But he ended up on a PTO with an AHL team to do it, if I'm not mistaken.


Your point is...? It seems reasonable to see how he did after sitting out for a year. Obviously the plan was for the Hurricanes to sign if he was capable, much like what Vancouver attempted to do w/ Prospal. It still didn't change the fact he was a useful player for the Canes.

Meds wrote:
Clam wrote:I'm not even saying he'd be on the team now. If you want to believe the story that was dished out then open wide.


I don't think anyone here is suggesting they believe Gillis' line about Malhotra being "unsafe". It was a business move plain and simple.


Some people like to argue for the sake of arguing. Moronic statements like it was Kesler vs Manny for the sake of being contrary. Ask yourself this, if no one is believing that (which isn't true, but let's pretend it is), what is it that twisted this into the appearance of an argument? All I said was that it was suspicious & convenient timing when it went down. Cam Barker could have been dispatched, there was other options than the official story/business move.

Meds wrote:
Clam wrote:Troller has a history of tendencies towards straw man arguments so its no surprise that this conversation shifted to Manny's performance. I don't recall that factor coming up in the press conference. Arguing that his play didn't warrant being on the roster (and someone had to go) backs up my assertion that the official story doesn't pass the smell test. Only a troll can argue against someone (repeatedly) while inadvertently supporting their case.


I would say that his performance on the ice was at the center of the original decision. When Gillis said he saw Manny being blindsided and not seeing things coming the way he used to. Being unable to safely compete. How players conduct themselves on the ice is all a factor attributable to performance. You think Gillis consulted Madame Cleo or something and asked for a reading on Manny's thought process and whether or not he was mentally and physically capable of playing safely? No. He judged it all by his performance on the ice.

I'm not sure any of the rebuttals you have received here over this topic are "straw man" arguments (you use that term too much btw).....everyone here agrees that shutting him down versus trading him or waiving him was a business move to clear cap space in order to make room for Kesler's return from injury. Manny was chosen because his performance was below the level of Ebbet, Schroeder, and Lapierre, at the time. Maybe he couldn't be traded, maybe Gillis really did hope Manny would stick around and still be part of the team. Who knows the actual plan for Malhotra beyond that season. If Manny couldn't be traded then whatever, should have waived him, it was a dick move, but it was performance based.


That's exactly what they are meds. Perhaps that term is being used because that bullshit form of debating is being used too much (not by you). Think about that. It's not accidental, if it continues, I'll call it out. There shouldn't be a need for rebuttals over this issue if we all agree he was shut down for business reasons as you say. The only thing on the table should really be if Manny was the right call over Barker (2 assists in 14 gp total), Pinizzotto (how did he pan out?), Ebbett...maybe Schroeder (waiver exempt...not exactly deployed in an effective manner for him to potentially succeed). Losing Volpatti was a waste.
"Once a King, always a King"
-Mike Murphy
User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Postby Meds » Sun May 04, 2014 2:41 pm

ClamRussel wrote:
Meds wrote:I'm not sure any of the rebuttals you have received here over this topic are "straw man" arguments (you use that term too much btw).....everyone here agrees that shutting him down versus trading him or waiving him was a business move to clear cap space in order to make room for Kesler's return from injury. Manny was chosen because his performance was below the level of Ebbet, Schroeder, and Lapierre, at the time. Maybe he couldn't be traded, maybe Gillis really did hope Manny would stick around and still be part of the team. Who knows the actual plan for Malhotra beyond that season. If Manny couldn't be traded then whatever, should have waived him, it was a dick move, but it was performance based.


That's exactly what they are meds. Perhaps that term is being used because that bullshit form of debating is being used too much (not by you). Think about that. It's not accidental, if it continues, I'll call it out. There shouldn't be a need for rebuttals over this issue if we all agree he was shut down for business reasons as you say. The only thing on the table should really be if Manny was the right call over Barker (2 assists in 14 gp total), Pinizzotto (how did he pan out?), Ebbett...maybe Schroeder (waiver exempt...not exactly deployed in an effective manner for him to potentially succeed). Losing Volpatti was a waste.


Well it's pretty difficult to put that on the table. Obviously hindsight would indicate that keeping Manny would have been a better option for the team in the here and now. But at the same time, salary definitely had to come into play here. Barker, Ebbet, and Pinizzotto, were making a combined $1.9M, whereas Malhotra was making $2.5M. So while you have come out and stated that you believe Gillis fucked up by letting him go, dick move or not, others are saying that at the time it was the right choice when comparing him to the other players.

Also, comparing Cam Barker to Malhotra in terms of point production is asinine. Barker was a 7th/8th defenseman and Manny was a 12th/13th forward, and likely dropping to 14th at that point. Injuries to the blueline are more commonplace, and depth on the blueline has always been considered paramount. The choice was to let go of 1 of 3 centers who were battling it out for the 12/13 spot on the depth chart. Cap was an issue. Manny made twice as much as both of those guys combined. Their production was all very similar. The choice was clear at the time.

Need more clarity? Trading Mikael Samuelsson and Marco Sturm to Florida for David Booth was a fucking no brainer. At the time, and on paper, Gillis fleeced the pants off of Tallon. Hindsight suggests that it was a wash as none of those players contributed much for their new teams.....Gillis looks worse now because Booth had a contract that was more than both of Sturm and Samuelsson and for a longer term.

You can't debate the merits of a trade when you already know the outcome, the numbers don't lie. Nobody here is arguing with you that what we see now makes the move then look like a mistake. Topper isn't muddying the waters or deflecting, he's arguing that at the time Malhotra's performance was worse. The only time he did anything resembling a strawman argument was when he said.....

Topper wrote:So the mollusk would have Manny over Kesler in the lineup. Recall, Manny's comeback from injury stink, stank, stunk and moving him out the roster was best for all concerned, including Manny. At that point he was even being displaced from own zone faceoffs.

It was no case of an elephant in the room, the guys play stank and it was clear to all watching that Manny was being blindsided by opponents. If anything, Manny was kept active too long as a placeholder in Kesler's absence.

Didn't a similar convenient IR swap scenario occur with Bieksa and Edler the previous year and we all mumbled cap management.


All he did was take a jab at you. His argument after that first sentence was to the point and in no way misrepresenting your opinion. He then went on to talk about Manny's return and his AHL level of play.

He dismisses the elephant in the room because everyone knew that Manny wasn't the same player, and that the Canucks needed cap space for Kesler's return. Your "elephant" implies that nobody talked about it.....and yet we all did.

He then talks about the Bieksa/Edler swap that was clearly a cap management move.

It is then you that continues to press the issue by bringing up Malhotra's current level of play.....which has absolutely no bearing on his level of play at the time of Gillis' shutting him down. This was a year after his injury and all the guy could do was take faceoffs.....

When that has been answered a thousand times by multiple people you go back to.....

Clam wrote:The main issue here was not that Malhotra was dispatched off the team, it was the line of bullshit that was fed. While I think he still should have been on the team ahead of Ebbett, you guys disagree. Its subjective. I am aware he wasn't playing great at the time, I believe he would have played through it and he did just that. I'm not even saying he'd be on the team now. If you want to believe the story that was dished out then open wide.


Nobody here said they believed Gillis' reasoning. They hoped it was legit, but everyone here saw it as a cap issue and Manny was the odd man out because of his play.

Do you think for a minute that if Malhotra had recovered from his injury and was playing at the same level that he was before being hit with the puck that Gillis would have shut him down? Obviously not. Nobody is saying that. Malhotra couldn't hold his spot on the roster. If he had been contributing meaningfully at the time then the move would be to axe 2 other guys and send Schroeder to the AHL.

As to his performance in the faceoff circle. At the time it wasn't what it had been. Kesler is a pretty damned good faceoff man in his own right. Manny being gone and Kesler returning meant that Kesler could then be deployed in some of those situations. The trade off was performance based decisions for cap management.

I couldn't remember how this whole back and forth started, so I went back. The "strawmen" that you are referring to have stuck to their position and argument throughout. You have argued several different points and now come full circle.

Time to stop.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3123
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Postby ClamRussel » Sun May 04, 2014 6:13 pm

Meds wrote:He dismisses the elephant in the room because everyone knew that Manny wasn't the same player, and that the Canucks needed cap space for Kesler's return. Your "elephant" implies that nobody talked about it.....and yet we all did.


What has "we" got to do with anything? The elephant in the room is in regards to the Canucks and the media (who initially hinted at this but then 'decided' to go silent on the matter). They knew damn well what this was but towed the party line as per usual w/ the majority of sports media in this town these days. I'd like to know Dan Russell's take on this matter because you know the TEAM cheerleaders aren't going to touch it w/ a ten foot pole.

ClamRussel wrote:...no one will admit it, but the cap situation was the elephant in the room. Malhotra being "shut down" just happened to coincide w/ Kesler returning from injury. They were up against the wall last year when this "coincidentally" happened.


"My" elephant doesn't imply anything you're insinuating.

Meds wrote:As to his performance in the faceoff circle. At the time it wasn't what it had been.


Let me offer you some clarity.

2013/14 59.4% (2nd)
2012/13 65.3% (1st) *won 64 of 98 draws
2011/12 58.5% (4th)
2010/11 61.7% (2nd)

With limited icetime & focus on key situations, he was tearing the league a new asshole on the draw. Better than ever! Aside from faceoffs he was also still effective as a penalty killer. His 2-way game wasn't the same, he no longer looked like a warrior shutdown center. He had some very rough games, it happens. It is my opinion he was still extremely valuable on faceoffs, leadership and the penalty kill, much more valuable than a bunch of chumps who ended up playing 12-14 games. He would have come around, thats my opinion, you have yours. Argue all you want but his play in Carolina proves I am correct in believing his play would have improved given time and support. It did. Fact.

“We addressed it, looked at it, and we felt that he was capable of playing. He's been great. It's been a major plus for our hockey team so far.” - coach Kirk Muller


Clearly, you not only agree with what Gillis did, but how he did it. I don't mind they decided to move on, decisions are subjective-thats pro sports, my issue is that it was disingenuous.
"Once a King, always a King"
-Mike Murphy
User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Postby Topper » Sun May 04, 2014 8:21 pm

It is not about

A) Diaz
B) Bengahzi
C) What was said here
D) All of the above

Jay Carney Mollusc


ClamRussel wrote:What has "we" got to do with anything? The elephant in the room is in regards to the Canucks and the media (who initially hinted at this but then 'decided' to go silent on the matter). They knew damn well what this was but towed the party line as per usual w/ the majority of sports media in this town these days. I'd like to know Dan Russell's take on this matter because you know the TEAM cheerleaders aren't going to touch it w/ a ten foot pole.


Oh yeah, the media tow the Canuck party line and never try stir the pot - LOL

Never worked on starting a goal tending controversy or get riled up over certain players ice time. No not the Vancouver media, they faithfully regurgitate CDC press releases and nothing more. (in case you don't get it - look up sarcasm)

You are putting RD to shame. Do you believe what you type?
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: 4552
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Postby Todd Bersnoozi » Sun May 04, 2014 8:48 pm

Meds wrote:[Need more clarity? Trading Mikael Samuelsson and Marco Sturm to Florida for David Booth was a fucking no brainer. At the time, and on paper, Gillis fleeced the pants off of Tallon. Hindsight suggests that it was a wash as none of those players contributed much for their new teams.....Gillis looks worse now because Booth had a contract that was more than both of Sturm and Samuelsson and for a longer term.


On the other hand, maybe Tallon knew exactly what he was doing. He knew he had a player who was not very good, a bit injury prone and had a bad contract (annual salary + term), so he was willing to dump him for any piece of garbage/cheap player he could find. MG was the first sucker to take the bait and went for it, hook, line and sinker, thinking that Boothy might regain his form as a 20+ goal scorer.
User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Postby Strangelove » Sun May 04, 2014 9:44 pm

OMG this has to be the most discombobulated discussion in CC history.

If I see one more word about Manny Fucking Malhotra I'm gonna blow my brains out!! :evil:
____
"I like to think that this team can get its mojo back" - Ryan Miller
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 6908
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Postby sagebrush » Sun May 04, 2014 10:10 pm

So, how many angels really can dance on the head of a pin?
User avatar
sagebrush
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:36 pm

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Postby ukcanuck » Sun May 04, 2014 10:11 pm

Strangelove wrote:OMG this has to be the most discombobulated discussion in CC history.

If I see one more word about Manny Fucking Malhotra I'm gonna blow my brains out!! :evil:

Personally I blame Manny Fucking Malhotra for losing us the Stanley Cup.
If he had just worn a visor that night...

Better results and shorter series against Chicago Nashville and San Jose. Less injuries and more rest to deal with those damned New Englanders
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Postby Meds » Mon May 05, 2014 12:46 am

Strangelove wrote:OMG this has to be the most discombobulated discussion in CC history.

If I see one more word about Manny Fucking Malhotra I'm gonna blow my brains out!! :evil:


Manny Malhotra is a good faceoff man.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3123
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Postby Todd Bersnoozi » Mon May 05, 2014 1:54 am

Manny Malhotra is fuckin awesome! :lol:
User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: Canucks News and Notes

Postby okcanuck » Mon May 05, 2014 5:15 am

Manny Malholtra has a great name.
User avatar
okcanuck
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:11 am
Location: Bestwank,BC

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests