Mike Gillis agrees to contract extension with Canucks

[herb]

as per Canucks twitter account

Edit: here's the link

http://canucks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=630937&navid=DL|VAN|home

Good news - I guess the meeting today went well??

Now that this is out of the way, we'll see what happens with the coaching staff and personnel. I don't think now is the time to be changing management's direction or the culture of the organization as I think the Canucks have come a long way.

[Jovocop]

Good news, except for RD...

[Hockey Widow]

Not surprised he is back but I wasn't really anticipating an extension. This sounds like a ringing endorsement from our owner. Leads me to believe MG will now also extend AV. He is an AV supported, the owner wasn't, but if MG now how his extension I'm sure it is on his terms. The only question will be if AV is pissed or not.

[SKYO]

Not surprised he is back but I wasn't really anticipating an extension. This sounds like a ringing endorsement from our owner. Leads me to believe MG will now also extend AV. He is an AV supported, the owner wasn't, but if MG now how his extension I'm sure it is on his terms. The only question will be if AV is pissed or not.

I bet MG will wait to see what happens with JQ first, and then Montreal will have to wait even that much longer.

[clem]

I bet MG will wait to see what happens with JQ first, and then Montreal will have to wait even that much longer.

Babcock.

[SKYO]

what about Bob Hartley?

[Hockey Widow]

MG is a big AV supporter. If he got his extension then you know it was on his terms. If he has the choice I think he extends AV. I just think MG and AV have some talking to do with respect to team management. Does AV want to stay given the hands on approach and will it really be any different anywhere else? Quebec is home but it will be more of a pressure cooker than Vancouver. Is he ready for that? Vancouver is still considered a contender. Does AV want to stay and finish the job or go on to a re-build?

This MG extension is huge to me. Ownership is obviously very pleased with the job being done and it also says to me that MG can handle the owner. So unless they have already decided mutually that anything short of another cup appearance was going to be the end for AV, which may be the case, I think MG's first choice would be to have AV back.

I really wasn't expecting an extension. I thought perhaps he would stay but with a clear mandate. Personally I am glad he was extended. As for AV I can live with either result.

[SKYO]

I hear what your saying HW, however I think a change in direction and control of this team is needed.

I liked this article - Alain Vigneault’s expiry date? http://blogs.theprovince.com/2012/04/16/alain-vigneaults-expiry-date/

However, there has to be a concern that eventually Alain Vigneault’s message will begin to be lost on the players. That his act with the the team will wear thin and that his effectiveness will wain. The supposed expiry date that all coaches fall victim to. But instead of me waxing poetic about this, let’s look at some numbers. (“Charroning” it as they call it in the business.)

These numbers were pieced together by mossey3535 from the HF Boards :

“Stanley Cup Winning Coaches (years coaching team)

2011 Claude Julien (year 4) vs Alain Vigneault (year 5)
2010 Joel Quenneville (year 2) vs Peter Laviolette (PHI 1)
2009 Dan Bylsma (year 1) vs Mike Babcock (year 4)
2008 Mike Babcock (year 3) vs Michel Therrien (year 3)
2007 Randy Carlyle (year 2) vs Bryan Murray (year 2)
2006 Peter Laviolette (CAR 2) vs Craig MacTavish (year 5)
2004 John Tortorella (year 4) vs Darryl Sutter (year 2)
2003 Pat Burns (NJD 1) vs Mike Babcock (ANA 1)
2002 Scotty Bowman (year 9) vs Paul Maurice (year 7)
2001 Bob Hartley (year 3) vs Larry Robinson (year 2)
2000 Larry Robinson (year 1) vs Ken Hitchcock (year 5)
1999 Ken Hitchcock (year 4) vs Lindy Ruff (year 2)
1998 Scotty Bowman (year 5) vs Ron Wilson (year 1)
1997 Scotty Bowman (year 4) vs Terry Murray (year 3)
1996 Marc Crawford (year 2) vs Doug MacLean (year 1)
1995 Jacques Lemaire (year 2) vs Scotty Bowman (year 2)
1994 Mike Keenan (NYR 1) vs Pat Quinn (year 4)
1993 Jacques Demers (year 1) vs Barry Melrose (year 1)
1992 Scotty Bowman (year 1 with PIT) vs Mike Keenan (CHI 4)
1991 Bob Johnson (year 1) vs Bob Gainey (year 1)

In summary, AV has been here for 6 years now.

In the last 20 years:

-The average winning coach was in his 2.35th year with his team and the average losing coach had been coaching their team for 2.8 years.
-Only Scotty Bowman has ever won the Cup after >5 years coaching the same team.
-Excluding Bowman, only AV, Hitchcock, Maurice and Mactavish have managed to make the final after 5 or more years coaching the same team.
-No SCF losing coach has come back to win the SCF with the same team.
-Only Keenan (CHI then NYR). Mike Babock (ANA then DET) and Bowman (DET) were able to come back to the SCF as losers and win.”

[Larry Goodenough]

MG is a big AV supporter. If he got his extension then you know it was on his terms. If he has the choice I think he extends AV. I just think MG and AV have some talking to do with respect to team management. Does AV want to stay given the hands on approach and will it really be any different anywhere else? Quebec is home but it will be more of a pressure cooker than Vancouver. Is he ready for that? Vancouver is still considered a contender. Does AV want to stay and finish the job or go on to a re-build?

This MG extension is huge to me. Ownership is obviously very pleased with the job being done and it also says to me that MG can handle the owner. So unless they have already decided mutually that anything short of another cup appearance was going to be the end for AV, which may be the case, I think MG's first choice would be to have AV back.

I really wasn't expecting an extension. I thought perhaps he would stay but with a clear mandate. Personally I am glad he was extended. As for AV I can live with either result.

Would Gillis have stayed without an extension? I thought leaving GMs and coaches to flounder in a last year of an expiring contract only happened in Toronto and Edmonton.

[clem]

So unless they have already decided mutually that anything short of another cup appearance was going to be the end for AV, which may be the case, I think MG's first choice would be to have AV back.

I believe that MG's preference is AV, but in the end, it may not be his decision.

AV's preference for being near family may outweigh the rest.

[$lacker]

Very stoked to find the old crew from CC, was an original member and just found this site.

Heard from sources that Gillis demanded a very large raise the day after they were eliminated... and obviously it was granted.

Don't be so sure about AV coming back, if he was coming back for sure I don't think Gillis would be pussyfooting around it so much. As others have intimated though, I think this is more on whether AV WANTS to come back, not if he will be asked.

[clem]

what about Bob Hartley?

It's all very hypothetical with so many dominoes to fall, but I would put Babcock, Quenneville and McLellan at the top of the list (if they become available). The first two have cup winning pedigree. All have done well in the regular season with an entertaining, offensive game. After that the list gets long, and confusing.

Could be a very interesting summer.

[Lancer]

It's nice to see that domino fall. Methinks Gillis was being prophetic when he said at the news conference that his situation had to be sorted out first before anything. Now I think we'll see some firmer indication of what's to come in the next week or so. There's no time to waste.

I guess Gillis got the endorsement he needed for his plan. I don't know if he would have stuck around if Aquilini disagreed with the direction Gillis was plotting for the club.

I thought leaving GMs and coaches to flounder in a last year of an expiring contract only happened in Toronto and Edmonton.

Thank God it didn't happen here. Reading Strachan's book about why the Leafs suck makes me appreciate the Canucks organization, even when McCaw owned the joint.

The ball's now in AV's court. We'll see what happens.

[Hockey Widow]

I agree that all the silence was at waiting game to see if MG got his demands meet. He obviously did so I think now we will begin to hear from him. If he plans to keep or extend AV he needs to come out soon with his support of the coach.

But this is also the time of year, just before the draft, where teams are reluctant to let people go that are still under contract. So if AV is not in the plans we may not see a new coach until after the draft, unless MG goes off the board.

[Waffle]

I wonder how the managing partner evaluates the GM:

1. Let's see, the club is making a 100 million dollar a year profit. Where did I put that contract extension?

or

2. Let's see.....wait...I don't see it....the frickin Stanley Cup!! I'm going to extend your contract this time, and give you anything you need, but if you don't win the cup, you're going to need to be wearing one at our next evaluation meeting.


“The Canucks have been fantastically successful, as a team and business. Purchased in 2006 along with Rogers Arena from Seattle’s John McCaw for a couple of instalments totalling $250-million, the value of Canucks Sports and Entertainment has probably doubled under the Aquilinis.
The strength of their ownership since they hired Gillis in 2008 to replace Dave Nonis, the general manager they had inherited from McCaw, is their absolute trust in their hand-picked man to make hockey decisions and the Aquilinis’ willingness to fund them.
The result is a team that has averaged 50 wins and 108 points the last four seasons while producing top-five NHL revenue and, likely, profits in excess of $100 million.”

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Canu ... z1uFTZOwdx