Gills and Vigneault

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

Moderator: Referees

Gills and Vigneault

Postby Meds » Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:30 pm

Zamboni Driver wrote:I'll disagree with you RD, I don't think that AV has done a great job.

In fact, I think BOTH Meds & RD are correct in parts: 1.) GMMG has screwed the pooch, and hasn't gotten the right parts to get the job done, and 2.) AV hasn't done a great job of managing & motivating the assets he has. We went from top 3 in both PP and PK to a powerplay that looks like crap. (although a little better lately) Maybe it isn't all his fault, regardless, if he can't get the team game working or if the players have tuned him out, he's overstayed his effectivness.


I don't argue that there are some moves that Gillis seems to have failed to make. I have never argued that, and I have often stated that there are some moves he's made that I don't like. In light of your post, Zamboni, I started this thread to compare both of these guys.

I do not think Edler should have been extended. I think Gillis should have pushed hard to include him in a package that would have secured the rights to Shea Weber. I'm not sure if he did try this or not. Maybe he did and that is why the extension for Edler came when it did.

I think that Ballard has not fit in here (obviously), and he should have been moved. That being said, I do believe that some of the reason he didn't fit is because Vigneault had issues with him and didn't utilize him effectively. Regardless, he was injured a fair amount during his first season here and I can see any GM giving him another chance. But when it became apparent that things weren't working and Vigneault clearly did not like him, Gillis should have been actively trying to move him for something usable. Again, maybe Gillis did try and the returns just weren't there.

Booth has been a bust. Literally. He's been hurt more than he's been healthy. Initially the move was a good one, giving up Sturm (useless) and Samuelsson (old and not meeting expectations), for a young power forward with good speed who wasn't afraid to go to the net and has a decent shot. That was no brainer. Booth being injured as much as he has been was unforeseeable. It also made it VERY difficult to trade him. This is just the breaks of hockey.

If the rumors surrounding Hodgson being moved are true, then you can't fault any GM or coach for what happened. Hodgson was utilized effectively in his last few months here, granted they were showcasing and sheltering him. But that was an effective way to develop a young player and let him gain confidence. Kesler's 2nd line was used in the defensive shutdown role more often, and the team was doing well. But if Hodgson didn't want to be here, and I don't blame him for not wanting to wait 5 years to get the minutes he could get elsewhere, and if his dad was really the pain in the ass we've heard he was, then the move was forced. If Kassian develops, then the move will be a success.

As it stands today signing Lou to that contract was not a good move, but at the time it was necessary, and it was on par with what other GM's were doing for franchise players. If Schneider had not developed it would have been a great signing, Schneider turning into what we hoped when he was drafted, coupled with Luongo's playoff collapse in Boston, that made things difficult. Lou should have been traded already, but circumstances being what they have been, it has been difficult and no GM is going to give up a goaltender like Luongo for Scrivens and a couple of 2nd rounders. The bad blood between Gillis and Burke and Nonis has just made the situation much worse.

The Malhotra situation was awkward to say the least. It appears to have been badly handled, and it looks as if Gillis really screwed Manny over. However, the lack of any action on the part of the PA, the rumors that this was a decision made with Manny's agent and family, if these are true then it was handled properly. Regardless, it had a negative effect on the team, and we've had a few players getting time in the line up who Malhotra was a better option than.

These are the only moves/non-moves that I think there can be fault found with Gillis, and obviously there have been some extenuating circumstances surrounding most of them.

Here are some good moves.....

Gillis brought in Higgins and Lapierre in 2011, both contributed to the success down the stretch and the run to game 7 of the finals. Both fit in quickly and have done all that has been asked of them. Lapierre has even attempted to change his game and be less of a pest.....he's still a pest, but he talks back to the officials much less than he used to. Regardless, he is an effective 4th line center.

He signed Jason Garrison last year. This has been a VERY good move. Garrison has replaced Salo on the point, and he is far more durable. It was an easy signing because Garrison wanted to come home to Vancouver, but nonetheless, it was still a move he made.

Gillis signed Dan Hamhuis. Another good signing for the Canucks. Also easy as Hamhuis is from BC and was happy to come home to play.

Gillis signed Chris Tanev. Tanev has been one of our steadiest defensemen this season and has taken some very big strides as a player.

Gillis signed Eddie Lack, who is looking like he will turn into a player of starting goalie caliber in the NHL.

Gillis drafted Jordan Schroeder. Schroeder has taken some strides and will likely become a top 6 forward. At the very least he will bring a return in a trade.

Gillis drafted Brendan Gaunce. Gaunce appears to be developing nicely and has been a real playoff performer for his junior team this year.

Gillis drafted Niklas Jensen. Jensen has potential to be a top 6 forward and in his recent call-up appeared to be a fairly responsible player in his own end, something not common among young players.

So Gillis has hardly been idle, and it can't be said that he has done nothing worthwhile as GM.

Let's have a look at Vigneault.

There is no question that he has done a good job in Vancouver. He took the reigns of a team that was on the back side of some great years that were always capped off with playoff disappointment. His team defense approach paid off and an under-achieving team suddenly became an over-achieving team that won the division and made it to the 2nd round of the playoffs, of course Luongo landing here definitely made his job much easier in that first season. The Sedins had also just matured into premiere forwards as well, so he wasn't given a team bereft of talent. Nonetheless, he did a good job in establishing a team philosophy that seemed to be lacking under Crawford.

In his second year the team failed to qualify for the playoffs.

In his third year they won their division and returned to the playoffs and again went to the second round. In his fourth year it was the same story as the 3rd year.

They then won consecutive President's Trophies and a trip to the finals. Though they were bounced in 5 games of the first round last year.

Since February of 2012 the team has been on a steady decline and has lacked focus and consistency. Players have been unable to find their groove and whenever a lineup boasts a trio that is finding chemistry they are inexplicably broken up among the other lines in an effort to get them all going. The results are usually not what one would hope.

Clearly Vigneault has done a good job in Vancouver, but since the 2011 SFC where Boston completely shut the Canucks down, more and more teams have taken that approach against Vancouver, and the Canucks have faltered badly. They have lacked intensity and often play spineless hockey. This "pay them back on the PP" mentality has backfired. The team lacks fire. The coach has been unable to inspire them. Their offense has dried up. Defensively they seem only capable of playing 20-40 minutes worth of a game.

There have been a few departures from this team's roster since 2011. Ehrhoff and Salo are both gone. Samuelsson has been moved. Malhotra injured and now gone. Rome gone. But other than that, the team is the same, they have even gained what should be some physical strength and grit. But the team continues to look lost and the once deadly breakout and attack is ineffective. But nothing has changed in their approach to the game. The team looks emotionless and flat. They have for over a year.

Vigneault has NEVER held his top players accountable for their mistakes and poor play. He is more than willing to throw other players under the bus and staple them to the bench for a single mistake, but the player making 10 mistakes a game and costing the team is allowed to "play his way out of the funk".

So are Gillis and Vigneault both at fault?

I think so. But I don't think it is because Gillis has not tried to bring players in, and I don't think it is because the players here are incapable of getting it done. On paper this roster is one that most GM's in the league probably look at and turn green with envy. So why can't they come out and dominate games the way teams like Chicago and Anaheim have this year? Why are they so easy to shut down?
User avatar
Meds
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2774
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby Island Nucklehead » Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:06 pm

I get a kick out of the notion that Gillis could (or should, as some people think) have gotten Weber. Was there any real chance that Nashville would let him go? And would Nashville trade him to a conference rival? One that they've met in the playoffs before? Would we trade Kesler to LA? If Nashville didn't take Four first round picks for him, why would they accept Alex Edler? Just because we want him, doesn't mean we could have gotten him. I mean, maybe Poile would've let him go for Kesler, Edler, Jensen and a first? Who knows... we do know that he wouldn't let him go for 4 first rounders, and he accepted paying him $7.8M/year forever (2026). Me thinks Weber was as untouchable as they get...

Ballard has been a bust. I can forgive Gillis for making that deal, because we needed durable puck-moving guys, and couldn't be 100% sure that Hamhuis wanted to come here. Didn't work out, but hindsight and all that shit.

Booth has been a bust. Again, he's looked good for the most part. But he can't stay healthy. We got him for (basically) free.

Not upset about moving Hodgson. I think Kassian is a good piece and a mean fucker. We need more mean fuckers. I think he will turn into a 20goal-130pim guy. That's great.

I don't think Gillis screwed Manny over at all. I think he gave him every chance to prove he could safely play in this league. The Canucks would almost certainly be better in the face-off dot, and by extension possess the puck more, if Manny was still playing. He shut Manny down for his own good, and probably to the detriment of the team. No complaints there.

I think this is AV's make or break year. The pieces are here for a successful team. He's been here a while. If we're not successful, we probably need a new voice behind the bench. Gillis has brought in pieces and assets to augment this team, it should be up to AV to use them to produce better results.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 3527
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby Meds » Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:20 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:I get a kick out of the notion that Gillis could (or should, as some people think) have gotten Weber. Was there any real chance that Nashville would let him go? And would Nashville trade him to a conference rival? One that they've met in the playoffs before? Would we trade Kesler to LA? If Nashville didn't take Four first round picks for him, why would they accept Alex Edler? Just because we want him, doesn't mean we could have gotten him. I mean, maybe Poile would've let him go for Kesler, Edler, Jensen and a first? Who knows... we do know that he wouldn't let him go for 4 first rounders, and he accepted paying him $7.8M/year forever (2026). Me thinks Weber was as untouchable as they get...


You are probably right about him not moving at all.

But, to clarify, I don't think that he would have let him go just for Edler. I did mean package him up.

I would have been inclined to offer Edler, Raymond, a pair of 1st round picks, and maybe even Schroeder. It's a high price, but when you consider what Weber brings to a team. It would have been worth it. Especially if Raymond is let go as an UFA this year.

And, all that being said, there is still no guarantee that Poile would have gone for that.
User avatar
Meds
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2774
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby Jovocop » Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:32 pm

Meds wrote:
Island Nucklehead wrote:I get a kick out of the notion that Gillis could (or should, as some people think) have gotten Weber. Was there any real chance that Nashville would let him go? And would Nashville trade him to a conference rival? One that they've met in the playoffs before? Would we trade Kesler to LA? If Nashville didn't take Four first round picks for him, why would they accept Alex Edler? Just because we want him, doesn't mean we could have gotten him. I mean, maybe Poile would've let him go for Kesler, Edler, Jensen and a first? Who knows... we do know that he wouldn't let him go for 4 first rounders, and he accepted paying him $7.8M/year forever (2026). Me thinks Weber was as untouchable as they get...


You are probably right about him not moving at all.

But, to clarify, I don't think that he would have let him go just for Edler. I did mean package him up.

I would have been inclined to offer Edler, Raymond, a pair of 1st round picks, and maybe even Schroeder. It's a high price, but when you consider what Weber brings to a team. It would have been worth it. Especially if Raymond is let go as an UFA this year.

And, all that being said, there is still no guarantee that Poile would have gone for that.


The problem is that even a package like what you have there might not be enough to get Weber. Both Raymond and Edler were on the last year of their current contracts. There are no guarantee that they would re-sign. The Predators want players to contribute offensively. After the end of last season, Raymond's value was all time low. Why would the Predators get rid of their only franchise defenseman for a soft second/third line winger and a threat-on-both-end-of-the-ice defenseman. Unless MG was offering Edler + Kesler + ??, the conversation would last very long.
User avatar
Jovocop
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:18 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby Topper » Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:55 pm

Always fun to read the thoughts of folks who believe only one party is involved in deals.

Strangely they also tend to be the same folks who believe 30 teams are involved in all deals.
Last edited by Topper on Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 4266
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby Meds » Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:55 pm

Jovocop wrote:
Meds wrote:
Island Nucklehead wrote:I get a kick out of the notion that Gillis could (or should, as some people think) have gotten Weber. Was there any real chance that Nashville would let him go? And would Nashville trade him to a conference rival? One that they've met in the playoffs before? Would we trade Kesler to LA? If Nashville didn't take Four first round picks for him, why would they accept Alex Edler? Just because we want him, doesn't mean we could have gotten him. I mean, maybe Poile would've let him go for Kesler, Edler, Jensen and a first? Who knows... we do know that he wouldn't let him go for 4 first rounders, and he accepted paying him $7.8M/year forever (2026). Me thinks Weber was as untouchable as they get...


You are probably right about him not moving at all.

But, to clarify, I don't think that he would have let him go just for Edler. I did mean package him up.

I would have been inclined to offer Edler, Raymond, a pair of 1st round picks, and maybe even Schroeder. It's a high price, but when you consider what Weber brings to a team. It would have been worth it. Especially if Raymond is let go as an UFA this year.

And, all that being said, there is still no guarantee that Poile would have gone for that.


The problem is that even a package like what you have there might not be enough to get Weber. Both Raymond and Edler were on the last year of their current contracts. There are no guarantee that they would re-sign. The Predators want players to contribute offensively. After the end of last season, Raymond's value was all time low. Why would the Predators get rid of their only franchise defenseman for a soft second/third line winger and a threat-on-both-end-of-the-ice defenseman. Unless MG was offering Edler + Kesler + ??, the conversation would last very long.


Yes, obviously everything hinged on whether or not Weber was willing to re-sign in Nashville. For the life of me I still have no idea why he did that.
User avatar
Meds
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2774
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby Meds » Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:57 pm

Topper wrote:Always fun to read the thoughts of folks who believe only one party is involved in deals.


I hope you aren't talking about me here.

All I said was I wish Gillis had been willing to offer up whatever it took (within reason of course).

I have said all along that Gillis is not a bad GM simply because moves haven't happened. It is NOT easy to make a trade in the NHL that puts a team over the top.
User avatar
Meds
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2774
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby Hockey Widow » Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:32 pm

Lets not forget that Weber wanted to come here. Wanted us to make a huge offer sheet, which Philly did. But MG told him he fully expected Nashville to match any offer sheet put out there and it would not work. HE said the only thing that would work was signing a one year offer sheet, which Nashville would match, and then he would become UFA and then the Canucks would offer him his huge deal. They even had discussions about what that deal may look like but since the new CBA was an unknown no one could predict exactly what it would look like. So Weber followed the money, took the insane offer sheet from Philly fully expecting that Nashville would match. So now he is stuck in Nashville instead of contemplating FA in the off season and the ability to go wherever he wanted.

I am somewhat curious as to why we seem to be ending us as an after thought in a some of these deals. Clowe, Shultz, Doan, and apparently a few deadline day deals for depth D. IS there something in the MG negotiating style that is hindering the acquisition of players? Not saying there is but just wondering.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2955
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby Uncle dans leg » Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:48 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:Lets not forget that Weber wanted to come here. Wanted us to make a huge offer sheet, which Philly did. But MG told him he fully expected Nashville to match any offer sheet put out there and it would not work. HE said the only thing that would work was signing a one year offer sheet, which Nashville would match, and then he would become UFA and then the Canucks would offer him his huge deal. They even had discussions about what that deal may look like but since the new CBA was an unknown no one could predict exactly what it would look like. So Weber followed the money, took the insane offer sheet from Philly fully expecting that Nashville would match. So now he is stuck in Nashville instead of contemplating FA in the off season and the ability to go wherever he wanted.

From my perspective(on the couch...) he seems quite arrogant and condescending but then again most NHL management types do as well.

If it's true about Weber wanting to come here, that is quite interesting. I wonder if he has enough pull there to force a trade back here in the future, should he tire of Nashville. Since it was a "match" type of contract, does this mean there is no NTC?
Listen, don't mention the war. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right.
User avatar
Uncle dans leg
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: Lethbridge AB

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby Jovocop » Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:55 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:Lets not forget that Weber wanted to come here. Wanted us to make a huge offer sheet, which Philly did. But MG told him he fully expected Nashville to match any offer sheet put out there and it would not work. HE said the only thing that would work was signing a one year offer sheet, which Nashville would match, and then he would become UFA and then the Canucks would offer him his huge deal. They even had discussions about what that deal may look like but since the new CBA was an unknown no one could predict exactly what it would look like. So Weber followed the money, took the insane offer sheet from Philly fully expecting that Nashville would match. So now he is stuck in Nashville instead of contemplating FA in the off season and the ability to go wherever he wanted.

I am somewhat curious as to why we seem to be ending us as an after thought in a some of these deals. Clowe, Shultz, Doan, and apparently a few deadline day deals for depth D. IS there something in the MG negotiating style that is hindering the acquisition of players? Not saying there is but just wondering.


Personally, I am not so sure why players like Clowe and Weber would follow the money instead of waiting to play for a team that could win it all. Both players could have waited just a season or even half a season to get the big extension that they will still get from some teams. Instead, they wanted guaranteed money up front. After all, I just don't think that they care much about winning except the pay cheque.
User avatar
Jovocop
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:18 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby Uncle dans leg » Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:57 pm

Jovocop wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:Lets not forget that Weber wanted to come here. Wanted us to make a huge offer sheet, which Philly did. But MG told him he fully expected Nashville to match any offer sheet put out there and it would not work. HE said the only thing that would work was signing a one year offer sheet, which Nashville would match, and then he would become UFA and then the Canucks would offer him his huge deal. They even had discussions about what that deal may look like but since the new CBA was an unknown no one could predict exactly what it would look like. So Weber followed the money, took the insane offer sheet from Philly fully expecting that Nashville would match. So now he is stuck in Nashville instead of contemplating FA in the off season and the ability to go wherever he wanted.

I am somewhat curious as to why we seem to be ending us as an after thought in a some of these deals. Clowe, Shultz, Doan, and apparently a few deadline day deals for depth D. IS there something in the MG negotiating style that is hindering the acquisition of players? Not saying there is but just wondering.


Personally, I am not so sure why players like Clowe and Weber would follow the money instead of waiting to play for a team that could win it all. Both players could have waited just a season or even half a season to get the big extension that they will still get from some teams. Instead, they wanted guaranteed money up front. After all, I just don't think that they care much about winning except the pay cheque.

Clowe went to a pretty stacked team tho...better than Van I'd say
Listen, don't mention the war. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right.
User avatar
Uncle dans leg
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: Lethbridge AB

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby Island Nucklehead » Mon Apr 22, 2013 5:14 pm

Meds wrote:I have said all along that Gillis is not a bad GM simply because moves haven't happened. It is NOT easy to make a trade in the NHL that puts a team over the top.


And I think this is where Gillis certainly deserves credit. Short of the Ballard deal, has he really sold out serious future assets in trades? Looking at the deals he's made, the Canucks have generally got the better player, and haven't given up a lot for some great assets.

Booth, gave up nothing (important) and got our third rounder back to take Reinprecht in the minors. Right on.

Hodgson. Youth for youth. Skill for size. Soft for mean.

Max Lapierre and Chris Higgins came to us for Joel Perrault, Even Oberg, and a couple third round picks (one of them since re-acquired in the Booth deal, the other one is AHL G Frederik Andersen).

We all know how valuable Ehrhoff was to us. That was a fleecing.

Derek Roy filled a real need for us. Getting him for a 2nd and Connauton is pretty good at first glance. But it really hinges on what happens in the playoffs.

The only real loser for MG is the Ballard deal.

Hockey Widow wrote:Lets not forget that Weber wanted to come here. Wanted us to make a huge offer sheet, which Philly did. But MG told him he fully expected Nashville to match any offer sheet put out there and it would not work. HE said the only thing that would work was signing a one year offer sheet, which Nashville would match, and then he would become UFA and then the Canucks would offer him his huge deal.


I would imagine the salary cap would come into play here. I understand teams can go over the salary cap by 10% in the offseason. The problem is, with a lockout, nobody was saying WHAT the salary cap was for this season. We can't put Kesler on the LTIR during the offseason, and unless we dumped Luongo for nothing I'm not sure where that cap space was supposed to come from. Realistically, we'd have to offer Weber the $7.5M+ 1 year deal (if we had the cap space). There's no guarantee Nasvhille matches. Maybe we have to trade Lou for a 4th rounder, and then give up four first rounders for one year of Weber. I think there's just too much risk for Gillis to pull in a lockout-summer.

I am somewhat curious as to why we seem to be ending us as an after thought in a some of these deals. Clowe, Shultz, Doan, and apparently a few deadline day deals for depth D. IS there something in the MG negotiating style that is hindering the acquisition of players? Not saying there is but just wondering.


Shouldn't we give him credit for being in the mix?? The Canucks are a competitive team, but they are also a team full of dick-slits. There's a reason we're one of the most hated teams in the league, and it's not just because we're good. Another factor is travel.

When the NYR can take busses to away games in Jersey or Long Island, and we have to fly over mountain ranges... that's a consideration.

Doan always wanted to stay in Phoenix. Not even the Canuck Bible Study Group could pull him away.

Shultz went to the guaranteed playing time. He'd look good on the Canucks, but his window is MUCH larger in Edmonton and he can be a stud right away (on a shitty team). I'm sure pulling broads (even ugly rig-pigs in Edmonton) is more fun when you're doing cocaine with Eberle and Hall (vs. visiting IKEA with the Sedins). Vancouver is a more veteran team, and Kassian is fucking gross-lookin and probably scares girls.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 3527
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby ESQ » Mon Apr 22, 2013 5:45 pm

Meds wrote:Yes, obviously everything hinged on whether or not Weber was willing to re-sign in Nashville. For the life of me I still have no idea why he did that.


I believe our interests would have been served if we'd had an offer sheet to Weber for a one-year deal. That way you prevented Nashville from signing a long-term extension, and if Nashville took the picks you'd have all year to extend Weber. You also would have prevented some other stupid team from signing a massively-long term deal that allows Nashville to keep him his entire career.

...but this didn't happen. I can't believe Gillis didn't try every whichway he could to get Weber to sign any kind of offer sheet that would have resulted in Weber actually wearing a Canucks jersey, but Weber wouldn't bite.

I don't think you can blame Gillis for not being in on trades or transactions where the player had a say in where they went, because at the end of the day most NHL players don't want to play in Vancouver, and given the option they will almost always choose an East Coast team with easy travel and lower taxes.

I think Vigneault is a good (maybe even great) coach, but he really falters when it comes to handling players who like to carry the puck. Ballard is actually one of the best puck-movers on the blue line - it just so happens that he likes to move the puck by carrying it end to end, but when he does that there is no support from his teammates to turn a rush into a play or even offensive zone possession. Same with David "Head Down" Booth.

The AV "square peg round hole" problem hasn't always applied to Gillis' acquisitions - even though the above examples are Florida products, Garrison has transitioned very well for a short season and no training camp.

I definitely don't agree that Edler shouldn't have been re-signed. Those minutes are too difficult to replace, unless its a trade for weber. I think the Higgins re-signing is an excellent contract. The only contract drafted by Gillis that I object to is Luongo. Its especially bitter for me because I'm a huge Luongo fan and defender, but Gillis should have known that Luongo had family problems that could send the whole deal sideways in a hurry, which as I understand first arose the season after the mega-extension. The number and term are excellent for a goalie of Luongo's caliber, its this trade "demand" 2 years before the contractual trade window opened that has screwed the team over.
ESQ
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby Meds » Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:38 pm

ESQ wrote:
Meds wrote:Yes, obviously everything hinged on whether or not Weber was willing to re-sign in Nashville. For the life of me I still have no idea why he did that.


I definitely don't agree that Edler shouldn't have been re-signed. Those minutes are too difficult to replace, unless its a trade for weber. I think the Higgins re-signing is an excellent contract. The only contract drafted by Gillis that I object to is Luongo. Its especially bitter for me because I'm a huge Luongo fan and defender, but Gillis should have known that Luongo had family problems that could send the whole deal sideways in a hurry, which as I understand first arose the season after the mega-extension. The number and term are excellent for a goalie of Luongo's caliber, its this trade "demand" 2 years before the contractual trade window opened that has screwed the team over.


I should have clarified on the Edler shouldn't have been re-signed part.

He should have been traded with someone for an upgrade. Failing that then re-signing him was obviously the way to go.....unfortunately. His point production seems to warrant his salary, but his mistakes and total inability to play responsible defense on a regular basis is why I just have no use for him.
User avatar
Meds
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2774
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby Hockey Widow » Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:53 pm

Uncle dans leg wrote:
From my perspective(on the couch...) he seems quite arrogant and condescending but then again most NHL management types do as well.

If it's true about Weber wanting to come here, that is quite interesting. I wonder if he has enough pull there to force a trade back here in the future, should he tire of Nashville. Since it was a "match" type of contract, does this mean there is no NTC?



From everything I have read his original offer sheet with the Flyers did not contain a NTC. Nashville had the option of adding one before it was registered and were asked to by Weber and his agent. They refused. So as it stands, from what I believe, he does not have a NCT nor a NMC.

But his contract is front loaded so I doubt they are going to want to trade him in the first few years unless they get an offer that help them with a complete re-build. Money cannot change hands in a deal so they can't recoup the front loaded portion. It would take a huge package to get him in a trade in the near future but who knows if 4,5,6 years from now. Edmonton would have some interesting pieces to give up if they were willing to give up 2-3 of their kids, including Shultz.

If we can unload Luongo, Ballard, Booth we would have some pieces but at the cost of emptying the cupboards.

But if Nashville has another free fall next season they may have money problems that make moving him a financial reality, especially if he is as unhappy as is reported. To bad he didn't listen to MG, but then again he has his money.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2955
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Next

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests