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

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 19125
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Post by Hockey Widow »

We brought Roy in because we needed a good 2/3 line centre. I see it as a waste having him at wing or Kesler at wing. We need 4 strong lines rolling and we can do that with either keeping Roy as a centre or bringing up JS to play third line centre with Raymond and Hansen.

That gives us plenty of bodies to play 4th line.

My lines to start:

Sedin/Sedin/Kassian
Higgins/Kesler/Burrows
Raymond/Roy/Hansen
Lappy and pick 2 of Weise, Sestito, Ballard, Pinizzotto, Ebbett,

I like keeping Ballard on wing if he isn't going to play on D as it gives us 7 d'men in a game to cover for penalties or injuries.

If you bring JS up to play centre then keep Kesler/Roy/Higgins. Drop Burrows down to JS line and drop Hansen onto the 4th with Lappy and whoever.
The only HW the Canucks need
FAN
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 341
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Post by FAN »

Todd Bersnoozi wrote: OK, name 1 trade that Gillis totally robbed another team? I can't think of one. Sure, he made some nice signings like Hamhuis, Garrison and Sundin. Ehrhoff was definitely a nice pickup, but Doug Wilson just wanted to get rid of that contract, so he can add Heatley. Gillis was at the right place at the right time for that one and he deserves credit for it. I'm pretty sure Wilson knew he was receiving nothing in White/Rahimi.
Again, you're fixated on the need for a blockbuster trade or steal to justify a GM's performance. Blockbusters really don't happen often anymore, as it's always some team dumping an undesirable contract or a soon to be UFA. And what has Nonis done outside of the Luongo trade (and you can argue that Keenan gifted Luongo to Nonis as he was a bad GM)? The Ehrhoff trade was a steal. Patrick White was worth a 2012 2nd round pick so Wilson knew what he was getting. Gillis is simply better than Nonis at asset management: Gillis consistently got value out of his trades while Nonis did not.
Todd Bersnoozi wrote: He was desperate and overpaid with a bunch of picks on a bunch of guys who did not come back the following year.
Some of those guys didn't come back because they couldn't crack an NHL roster. If what you say is true, Nonis was desperate and overpaid. Definitely not what a good GM would have done.
Todd Bersnoozi wrote: I think Nonis had no choice. When Bert left and Jovo left, he let's crow go and brings in AV, Lou and Willie comes in, his team had to be more defensive orientated.
Of course there is a choice. Style of hockey is a choice. Didn't Burke say something to the effect that as long as he was here the Canucks would play uptempo hockey? If bringing in AV, Lou, and Willie meant that the team had to play the trap that was Nonis' fault.

Todd Bersnoozi wrote: Yes, Nonis did still have the WCE when he came on, but I think u are forgetting one thing that happens to all hockey players... father time. Nonis was probably hoping Nasi was still a front line player, but he was clearly not. U can say that Nonis failed to find a guy to play with Nasi, but I remember alot of ppl saying at the time that AV's defensive system hindered Nasi's talents.
Now whose fault was that? Nonis re-signed Naslund and banked on him being a frontline player. he was not. AV's system didn't suit Naslund's? Nonis hired AV to be the coach.
Todd Bersnoozi wrote: Let me put it this way, it's a lot harder to acquire and develop guys who can play the top lines/top minutes like the Sedins, Kesler, Edler, Bieska, Luongo. It's a lot easier to find guys to play the 2nd-3rd lines and moderate minutes in the likes of Higgins, Lapierre, Malhotra, Weise, Roy, Booth, Ballard, Alberts, etc.
Tell that to Nonis. Nonis was fixated on the likes of Brunnstrom and Marc Chouinard.
User avatar
Meds
MVP
MVP
Posts: 13325
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Post by Meds »

CBC HNiC panel just gave Gillis and his scouts a serious nod for finding Corrado later on in the draft.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.
User avatar
SKYO
MVP
MVP
Posts: 14992
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Post by SKYO »

Is it too late to fire AV?
Can the Canucks just win a Cup within the next 5 years.
Larry Goodenough
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:43 am

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Post by Larry Goodenough »

RoyalDude wrote:
Larry Goodenough wrote: Drafting outside of the top 5 or 10 spots is a coin flip.
The Bruins drafted Lucic, Marchand, Bergeron, Krecji outside of the first round. These four players are core key players for that team. They have a hot prospect named Camara who they drafted outside of the 1st round. Take a look at what the Blues have drafted outside the first round and late in the first round. Excuses, excuses...still doesn't explain why the Canucks prospect depth gets ranked as the worst in the league.

The Canucks bread and butter at the draft has always been outside the first round, excpet for Gillis.

Bieksa
Aucoin
Walker
Peca
Raymond
Hansen
Cooke
Schaefer
Odjick
Bure
Edler
etc.,

Past management has had great success drafting outside the top 10 at the draft. Still waiting on Gillis first round picks

Kesler
Schneider
Umberger

You don't seem to understand how a coin flip contest might work.....
User avatar
Chef Boi RD
MVP
MVP
Posts: 28881
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Post by Chef Boi RD »

Larry Goodenough wrote:
RoyalDude wrote:
Larry Goodenough wrote: Drafting outside of the top 5 or 10 spots is a coin flip.
The Bruins drafted Lucic, Marchand, Bergeron, Krecji outside of the first round. These four players are core key players for that team. They have a hot prospect named Camara who they drafted outside of the 1st round. Take a look at what the Blues have drafted outside the first round and late in the first round. Excuses, excuses...still doesn't explain why the Canucks prospect depth gets ranked as the worst in the league.

The Canucks bread and butter at the draft has always been outside the first round, excpet for Gillis.

Bieksa
Aucoin
Walker
Peca
Raymond
Hansen
Cooke
Schaefer
Odjick
Bure
Edler
etc.,

Past management has had great success drafting outside the top 10 at the draft. Still waiting on Gillis first round picks

Kesler
Schneider
Umberger

You don't seem to understand how a coin flip contest might work.....
Is that like when you flip a coin and it either shows up heads or tails? :?
“Tyler Myers is my guy... I was taking to Scotty Bowman last night and he was bringing up his name, and saying he’s a big guy and big guy need big minutes to play, he is playing great for ya… and I agree with him… He’s been exceptional” - Bruce Boudreau
User avatar
Aaronp18
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4670
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:36 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Post by Aaronp18 »

In RD's world it's - heads someone else wins, tails the Canucks lose!
User avatar
Zamboni Driver
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 716
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:24 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Post by Zamboni Driver »

Mëds wrote:
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 Mëds & 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.

Booth has been a bust. Literally. He's been hurt more than he's been healthy.

If the rumors surrounding Hodgson being moved are true, then you can't fault any GM or coach for what happened.

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.

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.

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.


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?
Mëds, great thread!
By the time I can write a proper reply, there are 9 pages.

I agree with most of what you've posted, except that I think we had to re-sign Edler. He's still tradable if a genuine blue chip #1 D-man comes along,

AV is stale and can't seem to motivate the team, he needs to go.

As for Gillis, I suspect he's heading for a C- or "fail" but right now it's incomplete.
I do agree that he's done a decent job in previous years, and I agree with you about Booth, Ballard, Malhotra & Hodgson.
However he hasn't gotten it done this year.

IMO his biggest failure was not getting a deal done for Lu at the beginning of the season when some teams were desperate for goaltending, now that Reimer & Holtby & Bobrovsky have developed, the number of teams willing to take on a long term deal is dwindling.

I've said for some time that IF (and it's a big if) the leaves were willing to give us Franson & Bozak (maybe with a 2nd or 3rd pick), he should have taken the deal. It would have helped up through the season, and would give us better depth for a playoff run. IMO we need to make a deep run NOW as the Sedins are not getting younger.
It would also have allowed us some flexibility to trade, or to sign some UFAs/RFAs this summer.

I would really love to know what was discussed at the start of the season, and what kind of an offer he could have gotten.

IF Gillis is able to get something spectacular this summer for Lu, then he will have done a good job.
If he's only able to get a crap offer, (or a bag of pucks!) for Lu, then it was the wrong move to hold out, and let the team scrape through the year with Ebbett as our 2nd/3rd line center.
User avatar
Meds
MVP
MVP
Posts: 13325
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Post by Meds »

Zamboni Driver wrote: IF Gillis is able to get something spectacular this summer for Lu, then he will have done a good job.
If he's only able to get a crap offer, (or a bag of pucks!) for Lu, then it was the wrong move to hold out, and let the team scrape through the year with Ebbett as our 2nd/3rd line center.
Luongo is definitely becoming an every growing question mark.

Nobody other than Gillis knows exactly what offers were made and what deals he offered at the end of last year and before for this season began. I don't think Luongo's price tag is too much. Or rather I think that it wasn't.

At this point his performances in the last 2 months, as few as they've been, have dropped his value. The season could NOT have ended on a poorer note for Luongo, and that really didn't help Gillis' efforts to move him.

If Gillis can get even so much as a 1st round pick in exchange for Lou, I think we should all be pretty happy with that.

That being said, I don't think this has anything to do with his contract. I do think that his contract made it difficult coming out of the lockout as GM's were all reluctant to take on term in light of what will be happening this summer and the cap dropping next year. Once the playoffs are over, and GM's know who they will be buying out, and what changes they will be making, I think that the first real viable time to trade Luongo will arrive just prior to draft day. But who knows what will happen.
User avatar
Zamboni Driver
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 716
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:24 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Post by Zamboni Driver »

Mëds wrote:
Zamboni Driver wrote: IF Gillis is able to get something spectacular this summer for Lu, then he will have done a good job.
If he's only able to get a crap offer, (or a bag of pucks!) for Lu, then it was the wrong move to hold out, and let the team scrape through the year with Ebbett as our 2nd/3rd line center.
Luongo is definitely becoming an every growing question mark.

Nobody other than Gillis knows exactly what offers were made and what deals he offered at the end of last year and before for this season began. I don't think Luongo's price tag is too much. Or rather I think that it wasn't.
Very true. We may not know for a long time if he screwed up or not.
It's my opinion that if he was offered Franson & Bozak before the season began, he should have taken it.
If on the other hand he was only offered a bag of pucks, then I can see why he didn't take the deal (but that will mean that are problems are much worse than thought)
We HAVE to move him this summer.
Mëds wrote:At this point his performances in the last 2 months, as few as they've been, have dropped his value. The season could NOT have ended on a poorer note for Luongo, and that really didn't help Gillis' efforts to move him.
Gee, thanks AV :roll: for hanging him out to dry vs Red Wings & the Ducks, that's really helping his trade value. :scowl:
If Gillis can get even so much as a 1st round pick in exchange for Lou, I think we should all be pretty happy with that.
I doubt it, but it'll be nice. More likely a 2nd/3rd liner & a 2nd/3rd pick


Mëds wrote:That being said, I don't think this has anything to do with his contract. I do think that his contract made it difficult coming out of the lockout as GM's were all reluctant to take on term in light of what will be happening this summer and the cap dropping next year. Once the playoffs are over, and GM's know who they will be buying out, and what changes they will be making, I think that the first real viable time to trade Luongo will arrive just prior to draft day. But who knows what will happen.
\
Nope, I think his contract is the problem, especially with the "Roberto Luongo" rule, so any team taking his contract will also get burned by "Cap recapture" if he retires before the final year
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 19125
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Post by Hockey Widow »

Even I have no idea what was offered or asked for by MG :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Hindsight is as they say 20-20. I think all of our expectations have been tempered throughout this but it needs to be MG's expectations that are in check. I think he will be glad to be done with it in the summer and as others have said the cap space itself is a valuable commodity to get in return. And Luongo may be more willing to move anywhere which may or may not have been a factor in all of this.

I still believe in fairytales and would love to see Luongo hoist the Cup this spring. It would be a fitting end to his time in Vancouver. Do it for Lou boys, do it for Lou!!
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
vic
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1091
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:29 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Post by vic »

As far as Gillis not accepting a "so-called" offer from the leaves, nobody knows what really happened there - if Gillis said "YES" and Lou said "NO" or if Gillis said "NO, we want more" and Lou said "TAKE THE DEAL MIKE, GET ME OUT OF HERE"

Hockey Widow wrote: I still believe in fairytales and would love to see Luongo hoist the Cup this spring. It would be a fitting end to his time in Vancouver. Do it for Lou boys, do it for Lou!!
#DoItForLou - Twitter hash tag for the run?
User avatar
Arachnid
CC Legend
Posts: 6249
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:56 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Post by Arachnid »

vic wrote:As far as Gillis not accepting a "so-called" offer from the leaves, nobody knows what really happened there - if Gillis said "YES" and Lou said "NO" or if Gillis said "NO, we want more" and Lou said "TAKE THE DEAL MIKE, GET ME OUT OF HERE"

Hockey Widow wrote: I still believe in fairytales and would love to see Luongo hoist the Cup this spring. It would be a fitting end to his time in Vancouver. Do it for Lou boys, do it for Lou!!
#DoItForLou - Twitter hash tag for the run?
No way, Ryper.
I love every move Jim Benning makes 8-)
User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Legend
Posts: 3723
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Post by Todd Bersnoozi »

FAN wrote: Gillis is simply better than Nonis at asset management: Gillis consistently got value out of his trades while Nonis did not.
True, Gillis has a better track record with some of his trade deadline deals. I think I admitted that already. But, Gillis and Nonis were in different positions. Gillis was dealing from a position of strength as his canuck teams were like top teams heading into the playoffs, whereas Nonis was in a weaker position, scratching and clawing trying to get in. As I mentioned as well, trade deadlines were a bit different then. There were alot more deals back then, thus draft picks were more easily acquired. Today, teams are more reluctant to give up picks, thus u can get a better player with picks now.

Of course there is a choice. Style of hockey is a choice. Didn't Burke say something to the effect that as long as he was here the Canucks would play uptempo hockey? If bringing in AV, Lou, and Willie meant that the team had to play the trap that was Nonis' fault.
Sometimes u gotta play the style that would give your team the greatest chance to win. If u were the GM of the Devils back in the late 90s and early 2000 and u had the likes of Marty Brodeur, Scott Steven, Holik, Daneyko and had Jacque Lemaire coaching your team, would u get your team to play an offensive run and gun system or a defensive trap system? I dunno about u, but I'd get them to play the trap and bring in players that could play and excel in that kind of system. I don't care if it's ugly/boring hockey, if it gets me wins and a cup, that is all I care about.

The system and style don't matter as much, as long as u get the results. Let's look at how Nonis does with this style and system? 1st year with it (2007), he makes the playoffs and makes the 2nd round before getting knocked out by the eventual champs in the Ducks. I think most would agree there was no way the Nucks were going to beat a stacked team like the Ducks. 2nd year with it (2008), they miss the playoffs. I can't remember exactly what happened, but I remember the team had some injuires, especially in the backend again. I seem the recall the sedins being quite invisible down the stretch during the playoff push and Lou had a baby and he was flying back and forth from here and florida, it seemed to really take its toll on him and he wasn't really good. So, Nonis has 1 good year and 1 bad year since going with a defensive system (50%). Not great, but I think not too bad all things considered.

Now whose fault was that? Nonis re-signed Naslund and banked on him being a frontline player. he was not. AV's system didn't suit Naslund's? Nonis hired AV to be the coach.
It's always easy to play armchair quarterback and blame the GM a few years after something happened. It's like saying Pat Quinn, why didn't u draft Jagr instead of Nedved? Or Mike Gilllis, why didn't u take Eric Karlson or Jordan Eberle instead of Cody Hodgson? Hindsight is 50/50 man. So you're saying u wouldn't have resigned Nasi? At the time, Nasi was still a pretty good player and he was the captain of your team. U need some offence from somebody. I think u have to try to keep your franchise player, fan favourite and all-time points leader. Some players can still play at a high lvl at at an old age (ie - Selanne, Jagr, St. Louis), some can't (ie - Linden, D.Weight) and unfortunately Naslund fell into the later category.

Tell that to Nonis. Nonis was fixated on the likes of Brunnstrom and Marc Chouinard.
Yes, he brought in some dead wood. But he brought in some decent players too (some with much longer impact on the team than others). As already mentioned some great ones like Lou, Burr, Edler, Willie, Hansen. Some decent ones with shorter durations with the team: Carter, Krajick, Pyatt, Baumgartner. And he slowly worked in a couple young guys who he inherited and they have become impact players on the Canucks: Kesler and Bieksa.
FAN
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 341
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Post by FAN »

Todd Bersnoozi wrote: True, Gillis has a better track record with some of his trade deadline deals. I think I admitted that already. But, Gillis and Nonis were in different positions. Gillis was dealing from a position of strength as his canuck teams were like top teams heading into the playoffs, whereas Nonis was in a weaker position, scratching and clawing trying to get in. As I mentioned as well, trade deadlines were a bit different then. There were alot more deals back then, thus draft picks were more easily acquired. Today, teams are more reluctant to give up picks, thus u can get a better player with picks now.
Those are good points. When Nonis was dealing from a position of strength so to speak he made better deals (Sopel and Smolinski). And I can agree that Nonis and Gillis operated under different trade deadlines. But that still doesn't excuse Nonis for acquiring players who turned out to be pure rentals. Gillis acquired players he managed to keep. I don't think Nonis even acquired one player at the deadline he managed to keep. And the different era argument didn't apply here. Take the 2006 trade deadline. Besides Nonis' acquisitions, every player acquired for a 3rd round pick or higher were not pure rentals.

Todd Bersnoozi wrote: Sometimes u gotta play the style that would give your team the greatest chance to win. If u were the GM of the Devils back in the late 90s and early 2000 and u had the likes of Marty Brodeur, Scott Steven, Holik, Daneyko and had Jacque Lemaire coaching your team, would u get your team to play an offensive run and gun system or a defensive trap system? I dunno about u, but I'd get them to play the trap and bring in players that could play and excel in that kind of system. I don't care if it's ugly/boring hockey, if it gets me wins and a cup, that is all I care about.
Well Nonis would tell you that the Canucks never played the trap and that they played a similar style to Detroit and if you think the Canucks played the trap you don't know anything about hockey. :lol: Seriously though, would you agree there was a marked change in the Canucks' style of play right after Gillis took over? And what were the players that Gillis added in the offseason and in the beginning of the season? You really think the likes of Bernier, Wellwood, Ryan Johnson, SOB, Hordichuk, Demitra, Davison while letting go of Morrison, Naslund, and Krajicek would make a difference to the team's style of play? No Gillis came on board and said that the Canucks would play an uptempo puck possession style of hockey and AV stayed on because he convinced Gillis that he can coach a more uptempo style of hockey. The team had the same coach and the difference in style is evident for all to see.
Todd Bersnoozi wrote:The system and style don't matter as much, as long as u get the results... So, Nonis has 1 good year and 1 bad year since going with a defensive system (50%). Not great, but I think not too bad all things considered.
Of course the system and style matters. It's all about organizational philosophy. The Red Wings and Devils were successful for years because they employed a similar system throughout the years even with coaching changes and they drafted and acquired players who were good fits for the system. To be successful, you got to figure out beforehand the style of hockey you want the team to play and stick with it. When the Devils beat Detroit and won their first Cup, you didn't see Detroit go to a trap system. Neither did the Avalanche. You adjust the system and playstyle to suit today's game, but the overarching philosophy is still there. That's why you see that even though Gillis has emphasized size recently, the bigger players were still guys who can play a puck possession game. As for Nonis, he actually had 2 bad years and one good year and didn't really have a philosophy on the type of playing style he wants the team to play or the culture he wants to have.
Todd Bersnoozi wrote: It's always easy to play armchair quarterback and blame the GM a few years after something happened. It's like saying Pat Quinn, why didn't u draft Jagr instead of Nedved? Or Mike Gilllis, why didn't u take Eric Karlson or Jordan Eberle instead of Cody Hodgson? Hindsight is 50/50 man. So you're saying u wouldn't have resigned Nasi? At the time, Nasi was still a pretty good player and he was the captain of your team. U need some offence from somebody. I think u have to try to keep your franchise player, fan favourite and all-time points leader. Some players can still play at a high lvl at at an old age (ie - Selanne, Jagr, St. Louis), some can't (ie - Linden, D.Weight) and unfortunately Naslund fell into the later category.
And Quinn might have had a job for a longer time had he drafted Jagr instead of Nedved and the Canucks might have won the Cup if they drafted Eberle instead of Hodgson. Hindsight is 20/20 but ultimately it's the GM's job to be right in hindsight. Not that it matters, but I would have re-signed Naslund if I was the GM at the time (I think most people would have), I would have drafted Kopitar (I think most people here would have) and I would have traded Jovanovski for futures knowing that I couldn't re-sign him. And if I still ended up fielding a team that missed the playoffs two out of three years and I had traded 2nd and 3rd round picks in the process, I would deserve blame just as Nonis deserves blame.
Todd Bersnoozi wrote: Yes, he brought in some dead wood. But he brought in some decent players too (some with much longer impact on the team than others). As already mentioned some great ones like Lou, Burr, Edler, Willie, Hansen. Some decent ones with shorter durations with the team: Carter, Krajick, Pyatt, Baumgartner. And he slowly worked in a couple young guys who he inherited and they have become impact players on the Canucks: Kesler and Bieksa.
And what results did it bring? Let's face it, Burrows was Heisinger 's find and Edler was Gradin's but I will credit Nonis for taking a chance on the two. The problem isn't that Nonis failed to bring in good players. It's that he failed to build a long-term contender. There is a reason why the team went no where under Nonis. Nonis' idea of building a team is to hand out one year contracts to reclamation projects. Gillis, on the other hand, is all about identifying the team's core players and getting them signed and surrounding them with quality players and wait for young players to come along. Nonis didn't do that. Nonis was all about rolling the dice on players like Anson Carter, Pyatt, Bullis, and Brunnstrom and when a player took that one year deal and proved to be a good fit (Anson Carter) Nonis lowballed him (according to Carter). The fact that you have to name Krajicek and Baumgartner as decent acquisitions shows how bad things were under Nonis.
Post Reply