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

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby FAN » Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:41 am

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.
FAN
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby Todd Bersnoozi » Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:40 pm

FAN wrote: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.


Southern Canuck actually started a thread about the 2006: Nonis Olympic Panic. He recounts that time quite accurately I think.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9860

Nonis knew this was probably the last time he was going to have the WCE together and along with the Sedin/Carter line. He had Linden, Cooke rounding out the 3rd lines and he was working in a couple of young guns in Kesler and Burrows. He probably thought if he can get his team into the playoffs and if his top injured D-men could come back sometimes in the playoffs (ie: jovo, ohlund, salo), his team could be a darkhorse team, really surprise some ppl and make a pretty good run. Yes, he gambled and lost. If I were him, I probably would of done the same thing though. Sacrifice some picks on some rentals just to try to get into the dance, but for the most part, those picks didn't amount to anything. (see other thread). :)


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?


Yeah, I would agree that Gillis wanted his team to play a more uptempo offensive style of game than Nonis. Good for him.


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.


If I were the Avalanche and had Sakic/Forsberg or the Wings and had Yzerman/Fedorov, I would want my team to play a more offensive uptempo system for sure. If I had the Devils with Stevens/Brodeur or the Preds with Weber/Rinne, I would want my team to play a more defensive trap like system. Sometimes u gotta go with a system based on the players u have, the system that would make your players most successful.


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.


I didn't count 2006 cuz that was the year he had the team still playing offensived minded hockey with the WCE and Sedins/Carter and with high flying Coach Crawford @ the helm. I only counted the team performance when the team was more defensive minded post WCE with AV @ the helm cuz I thought we were talking only about when Nonis brought in defensive tight checking hockey.


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.


Yeah, Kopitar would of been sweet. Imagine having Hank, Kopitar and Kesler down the middle. Lot of ppl here or the old CC board realy wanted Kopitar that year too. I think Bourdon would of still been pretty good, a top 4 guy for sure, but probably not as impactful as Kopitar. With Jovo, he was injured, so Nonis couldn't move him anyways. Nonis also probably would of kept him just to try to make a run as well.


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.


But u look at every GM, whether it be Quinn, Burke, Nonis to Gillis they all take on reclamation projects, basically sifting though other ppl's trash, hoping to find a diamond in the ruff. With Nonis it was guys like Bulis, Cowen, Isbister types. With Gillis it was Wellwood, Glass, Barker, Sesitito types. Sometimes u find a diamond in the rough like a Marty Gelinas. More often than not, u get what u pay for. I'll give u the fact that Gillis is doing a good job in identifying the core and surrounding them with good players like Hamhuis, Garrison and Higgy. However, I think Gillis also hurt the team a bit by bringing on Booth and Ballard, 2 players making like $4 mill each and a bit of term (2 years each still I think). Me and u can probably find some players for like $1.5 mill each and they would contribute as much if not more to the team than those 2 guys. This has been brought up before too, but MG shot himself in the foot more ways than 1 in the Ballard deal. If MG stayed away from Ballard, he would of been able to keep his assets (Grabner/1st pick) and he could of used that money to hold on to Ehrhoff (1 of his best acquisitions).

MG misread his goaltending situation as well by giving Lou that long term fat contract. With Lou making like $5 mill and $8mill on those 2 other guys, $13 mill of cap space can get u 2 pretty good players who can help the Canucks right now in this cup run. If I were the owner, I wouldn't be very happy to see those kind of dollars being wasted on guys who barely play. Say what u want about Nonis, at least he didn't have this kind of waste on the payroll hampering his teams. I guess MG still has a chance to turn Lou into a good prospect or 2 that might be good for the franchise, but it doesn't do much to help us this year. If I were a betting man, I would put my money on MG not getting much for Lou; he'd be lucky just for someone willing to take on that contract. If he wants something in return (a hockey deal), he's going to have to eat up some of that contract. As for those other 2? MG might have to buy them out. :(
User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby FAN » Wed May 01, 2013 5:52 am

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:Yes, he gambled and lost. If I were him, I probably would of done the same thing though. Sacrifice some picks on some rentals just to try to get into the dance, but for the most part, those picks didn't amount to anything. (see other thread). :)

I don't disagree. But like I said, his job is to be right and he wasn't. His acquisition of Weinrich probably cost the team the playoffs. Regardless of how the picks turned out, those picks were assets that Nonis threw away.

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:Yeah, I would agree that Gillis wanted his team to play a more uptempo offensive style of game than Nonis. Good for him.

My point is that Gillis' push for a more uptempo offensive style of hockey contributed to the Canucks' success over Gillis' tenure.

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:If I were the Avalanche and had Sakic/Forsberg or the Wings and had Yzerman/Fedorov, I would want my team to play a more offensive uptempo system for sure. If I had the Devils with Stevens/Brodeur or the Preds with Weber/Rinne, I would want my team to play a more defensive trap like system. Sometimes u gotta go with a system based on the players u have, the system that would make your players most successful.

I understand your point, but I believe that it's best to pick the style of play and match players to it because players you draft today will likely be years from contributing. That doesn't mean you don't adjust the system to fit today's game, but one of the points I was trying to make, likely unclearly, is that Nonis simply didn't have a clear plan for long term success. He didn't have a vision. The league was moving away from clutch and grab defensive hockey and Nonis didn't see it. You need to score goals to win the Cup and Nonis kept spending cap room on defensive defensemen and slow-footed forwards. There was a reason AV's team missed the playoffs in his second year here, the team didn't get better because Nonis didn't improve the team.

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:But u look at every GM, whether it be Quinn, Burke, Nonis to Gillis they all take on reclamation projects, basically sifting though other ppl's trash, hoping to find a diamond in the ruff. With Nonis it was guys like Bulis, Cowen, Isbister types. With Gillis it was Wellwood, Glass, Barker, Sesitito types. Sometimes u find a diamond in the rough like a Marty Gelinas. More often than not, u get what u pay for.

Yes but the difference is that with the exception of Sturm (whom he quickly got rid of) Gillis didn't rely on his reclamation projects to play big roles. Nonis relied on Carter, Bulis, Cowen, Isbister, and was about to sign Brunnstrom to fill roles(with the exception of Carter) that they were incapable of filling.

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:Say what u want about Nonis, at least he didn't have this kind of waste on the payroll hampering his teams.

Yes but that's partly because Nonis was too chicken to give anybody a contract for longer than two years except for defensemen. He was constantly looking for guys who are willing to sign one year deals. Gillis understood that in a cap world you have to pay players based on expectations. Sometimes that bites him in the ass, but you can't win a Cup by being conservative.
FAN
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby Hockey Widow » Wed May 01, 2013 5:50 pm

Well, Nonis didn't do anything this year to improve the Leafs and give them a chance to succeed in the playoffs. Granted a shortened season and a lot of teams didn't do much. What he does moving forward will define him in Toronto. One of those things may be his inability to get NHL quality goaltending especially when it was almost handed to him.

I will be interested to see if they make a pitch for Miller or if they try to land Smith as a FA.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4281
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby tantalum » Wed May 01, 2013 6:00 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:Well, Nonis didn't do anything this year to improve the Leafs and give them a chance to succeed in the playoffs. Granted a shortened season and a lot of teams didn't do much. What he does moving forward will define him in Toronto. One of those things may be his inability to get NHL quality goaltending especially when it was almost handed to him.

I will be interested to see if they make a pitch for Miller or if they try to land Smith as a FA.


Nonis did the same thing as GM of the canucks. I don't believe he had it in his plan to make the playoffs and battle for home ice advantage this year. I think he viewed it as a building year. They surprised but just like in Vancouver he seems like he is reluctant to accelerate his plan even though the results came quicker. Of course we'll see moving forward and they can of course win the series (it's only 2 periods old) but it will never make a damn bit of sense why he didn't take the opportunity to grab a potential game changer for cheap.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby Todd Bersnoozi » Wed May 01, 2013 6:03 pm

FAN wrote:Yes but that's partly because Nonis was too chicken to give anybody a contract for longer than two years except for defensemen. He was constantly looking for guys who are willing to sign one year deals. Gillis understood that in a cap world you have to pay players based on expectations. Sometimes that bites him in the ass, but you can't win a Cup by being conservative.



Good dialogue fan. I respect your views, but it looks like we're getting no where with our views on Nonis & Gillis. Agree to disagree. *offers handshake* :)
User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby Todd Bersnoozi » Wed May 01, 2013 6:10 pm

tantalum wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:Well, Nonis didn't do anything this year to improve the Leafs and give them a chance to succeed in the playoffs. Granted a shortened season and a lot of teams didn't do much. What he does moving forward will define him in Toronto. One of those things may be his inability to get NHL quality goaltending especially when it was almost handed to him.

I will be interested to see if they make a pitch for Miller or if they try to land Smith as a FA.


Nonis did the same thing as GM of the canucks. I don't believe he had it in his plan to make the playoffs and battle for home ice advantage this year. I think he viewed it as a building year. They surprised but just like in Vancouver he seems like he is reluctant to accelerate his plan even though the results came quicker. Of course we'll see moving forward and they can of course win the series (it's only 2 periods old) but it will never make a damn bit of sense why he didn't take the opportunity to grab a potential game changer for cheap.



Yeah, I think DN did not expect his team to make the playoffs this year. I think he knows the Leafs are not going far, so he just sees this as gravy and a learning experience for his players. Thus, he had no real urgency to make some moves @ the deadline (ie - Lou). He probably learned from his experience in Van and won't give up picks just for some rentals. I think he'll be active in the off season though.
User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby tantalum » Wed May 01, 2013 6:32 pm

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:Yeah, I think DN did not expect his team to make the playoffs this year. I think he knows the Leafs are not going far, so he just sees this as gravy and a learning experience for his players. Thus, he had no real urgency to make some moves @ the deadline (ie - Lou). He probably learned from his experience in Van and won't give up picks just for some rentals. I think he'll be active in the off season though.


There is a very large difference between "rental" and game changing player who will remain so for several years and is under contract for those years.

And the problem with that thinking is you don't get a chance at the playoffs every year and certainly not when you actually solidified your position pretty early on. They didn't sneak in or were on the on the bubble on deadline day (they were 5 points clear of 9th which is a hell of a difference with 10 games left). They were a team poised to be near the top of the conference and he should have taken the opportunity to solidify the team. Yes recognize that with a young team it wasn't the time for rentals but game changers don't typically drop in one lap like what was (supposedly) happening. Nonis became his crippled No-nuts self and failed to do that. He's potentially wasting a playoff year especially when, let's be honest, there are are really only 2 or 3 good teams in the east you can see making it to the final.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby FAN » Fri May 03, 2013 5:49 am

I am going to agree with Bersnoozi partly on this one. The Leafs simply aren't contenders and there's no sense trading futures unless it's for a piece that will help in the future. Still, Nonis' acquisition of O'Bryne is a move that supports my point that Nonis doesn't have much of a vision. James Mirtle wrote a nice article about the Leafs problems. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/leafs-beat/mirtle-leafs-central-weakness-exposed-by-bruins/article11675693/#dashboard/follows/

As Mirtle suggested, puck possession is a weakness of the Leafs and Ryan O’Byrne is one of the worst puck possession players on the Leafs. Honestly, I was worried at first that Gillis was too "hands on" instead of letting his coach coach, but I have come around to thinking that it's important that the coach reflects the GM's vision of how the team should play. Nonis doesn't seem aware of what it takes to win in this league and he's acquiring players his coach likes.

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:Good dialogue fan. I respect your views, but it looks like we're getting no where with our views on Nonis & Gillis. Agree to disagree. *offers handshake* :)

Yep. Let's just leave it at that. :lol:
FAN
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby tantalum » Fri May 03, 2013 7:30 am

no sense trading futures unless it's for a piece that will help in the future



Which is what I said. Well really what I said was would help now AND in the future. I agree a 100% short term rentals was a bad idea for the Leafs at the deadline. Long term solutions a good idea. I think when they were positioned where they were in what is by and large a conference full of teams with obvious large holes you accelerate the plan a bit. I don't think Nonis did that but yes he at least seemed to learn a lesson in not throwing away picks for rentals.

And really, the biggest problem for the Leafs is that shot differential and all the things that type of thing signifies. Seems silly to me then not to being in a guy (for cheap) who while not a solution for the differential can mitigate or even overcome that differential for several games or a series. Regardless of the outcome of the series, Nonis had the chance to add a player for cheap that would go a long ways to alleviating the primary and then allow him to concentrate on improving the fundamental underpinning going forward. Then when that was addressed, if Nonis was able to of course, he'd have an even greater competitive advantage.

I guess I just see Reimer as something of an Osgood. He may get hot for a period of time but there will always be big holes in his game that prevents him from being that difference maker. I'm about as good at judging goaltenders as Burke though so I might be wrong.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby ESQ » Fri May 03, 2013 11:35 am

FAN wrote:
Todd Bersnoozi wrote:Good dialogue fan. I respect your views, but it looks like we're getting no where with our views on Nonis & Gillis. Agree to disagree. *offers handshake* :)

Yep. Let's just leave it at that. :lol:

No! This is an internet forum godammit, you can't just agree to disagree! :lol:

FAN wrote: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)

A lot of people don't remember, but when Naslund was re-signed (right afterthe cap came in), Nonis had a very simple budgetary decision: either re-sign Naslund, or sign Scott Niedermayer.

That was a tougher call at the time than it seems in hindsight - Naslund was a season removed from a Pearson award win, and a few months removed from the Moore incident and a 20% drop in points. Niedermayer was coming off a Norris Trophy win, albeit on one of the most defensive-oriented teams of all time.

In my view, that decision is what Nonis' legacy is staked on. Had he gone with Niedermayer and let Naslund walk, his legacy in Vancouver would be far better. He went with Naslund instead, and that contract hamstrung him for the duration of his GM tenure and made him unable to ever get proper top-6 forwards.
ESQ
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby Meds » Fri May 03, 2013 12:48 pm

ESQ wrote:A lot of people don't remember, but when Naslund was re-signed (right afterthe cap came in), Nonis had a very simple budgetary decision: either re-sign Naslund, or sign Scott Niedermayer.

That was a tougher call at the time than it seems in hindsight - Naslund was a season removed from a Pearson award win, and a few months removed from the Moore incident and a 20% drop in points. Niedermayer was coming off a Norris Trophy win, albeit on one of the most defensive-oriented teams of all time.

In my view, that decision is what Nonis' legacy is staked on. Had he gone with Niedermayer and let Naslund walk, his legacy in Vancouver would be far better. He went with Naslund instead, and that contract hamstrung him for the duration of his GM tenure and made him unable to ever get proper top-6 forwards.


If I recall, Niedermayer coming to Vancouver was a pipe dream. He was always going to Anaheim because his brother, Rob, was playing there already and he wanted to play with his brother before he retired.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3472
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby donlever » Fri May 03, 2013 1:58 pm

Meds wrote: If I recall, Niedermayer coming to Vancouver was a pipe dream.


Close.

It was a "Pratt" dream, Dave being the only one who was banging that drum while actually believing it might happen.
A different goddamn hockey talk messageboard!
User avatar
donlever
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1861
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby BingoTough » Fri May 03, 2013 2:34 pm

donlever wrote:
Meds wrote: If I recall, Niedermayer coming to Vancouver was a pipe dream.


Close.

It was a "Pratt" dream, Dave being the only one who was banging that drum while actually believing it might happen.


Pratt's dream: (David Pratt didn't really say this so no suing me!): "YOU KNOW GUYS WHO WANTS TO PLAY HOCKEY AND IS FROM BC? SCOTT NEIDERMEYER. AND YOU KNOW WHO HAS A TEAM IN BC? THE CANUCKS. SO PUT TWO AND 2 TOGETHER AND U GET SCOTT NEIDERMEYER ON THE CANUCKS!!!! ITS OBVIOUS!"
I wonder if they'll disallow the whole game because of the distinct ass-kicking motion the Canucks used on the Kings? - Brian CC

Congratulations on the new job dave, try not to fuck it up this time eh? - UKCanuck
User avatar
BingoTough
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:16 am

Re: Gills and Vigneault

Postby Tiger » Fri May 03, 2013 3:12 pm

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:
FAN wrote:Yes but that's partly because Nonis was too chicken to give anybody a contract for longer than two years except for defensemen. He was constantly looking for guys who are willing to sign one year deals. Gillis understood that in a cap world you have to pay players based on expectations. Sometimes that bites him in the ass, but you can't win a Cup by being conservative.



Good dialogue fan. I respect your views, but it looks like we're getting no where with our views on Nonis & Gillis. Agree to disagree. *offers handshake* :)


Been enjoying reading both you and Fans posts .. both interesting and factual seeing things from a different point of view..Good to see 2 guys on this forum disagree without being disagreeable .. no personal attacks !!
My take? Nonis and Gillis were both "new" GM's and some of their mistakes were just that.. Newbie mistakes..
Nonis might be blamed for not tying his core to longer term contracts but Gillis's long term contracts are now biting him in the arse.. Right now , going into the playoffs we have over 12 million in contracts who are not slated to play :(.. Lou, Ballard, Booth, Maholtra.. Not Good ?
" If you cant beat them in the alley - you can't beat them on the ice
User avatar
Tiger
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 7:09 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 3 guests