Gillis' Line in the Sand

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

Moderator: Referees

Gillis' Line in the Sand

Postby nuckster » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:25 pm

I'm extremely surprised how little attention is being given on here to the Gillis interview on 1040 today! (but maybe not given the propensity of some to go on an on in little ego driven blather).

The speculation it's raising actually explains a lot. Torts has pursued a coaching system that has resulted in all of the team's players under-performing (point-wise), and according to Gillis, he wishes to pursue a system akin to what worked for the team in the past - emphasis on an up-beat offense. What emerges from his words, and the local media has picked up on this big-time, is that it's all too apparent that Torts wasn't actually hired by Gillis - he was Aquallini's doing. While I am not usually one to go light on Gillis, especially over this last season, I would have to say though that I kind of feel for the guy if 'other parties' are interceding in the decision-making process. What a set-up for a frikin ineffective direction (lost ship at sea) - a GM and ownership working to cross-purposes. If a GM is put into the kind of position that Gillis has, then ya probably get to the point where ya say, "let me run the ship how I wish to run it, or just fuckin let me go already."

I have never understood how people/posters can get behind Torts!? If you really look at the evidence, his influence/direction has been CRAP.

Another thing to consider, which again has been touched on in the past by other posters, when you lookm at a number of the situations that have unfolded which have been equated as Gillis' doing, there really truly has been some shitty circumstances, i.e., the lowering of the cap and the inability to move Luongo, Booth vastly under-performing, etc. I'm not saying he should be off the hook for some of his stupid decisions (like Ballard, etc), but with the raising of the cap this coming season and the prospect of moving some younger blood into the line-up, I sure as hell prefer the notion of pursuing an offensively minded team (like Colorado) as opposed to Tort's ...whatever the hell he calls his system.

So for shit sakes if we're going to have any hope of being productive in the future, Aquallini needs to stay the hell out of the operations and the GM, whoever it turns out to be, needs to be supported in pursuing HIS vision. Unfortunately, what might emerge from all of this, is the acquisition of a "Yes"-man type of GM to accommodate the ownership's desire to call the shots. Imagine, 2014-15 with Tort's and a new Aquallini 'Yes"- man!??? Clusterfuck city.
cc oldtimer
nuckster
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Gillis' Line in the Sand

Postby Art Vandelay » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:50 pm

My boss once drew a line in the sand. I responded by doing a line on his desk.
User avatar
Art Vandelay
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:56 pm

Re: Gillis' Line in the Sand

Postby Island Nucklehead » Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:47 am

It was speculated that Torts was an ownership hire from the Get-Go. I was okay with it at the time, because I figured this team needed a kick to the sack. The Country Club had to go to work in the ditches. While I knew that he would demand more from the players, I didn't think he'd abandon almost everything that made this team successful. He did.

I agree, this was Gillis' moment. "Let me do my fucking job, or turf me with millions and millions of dollars". Good for him.

When it comes down to it, I would rather him be with the franchise than Torts. And if the ownership goes the other direction, I cringe at what kind of anus they bring in here as GM.

Gillis was on the right path. Get bigger and more "western conference" while maintaining your skill/possession game. Sure, we needed more depth (thank you Jesus Booth), and more cap space, but the guy had the right idea about what kind of hockey team we could be.

Either let him do what he wants to do, or fire him! Good on him for getting his message out there, and I think that's a style that most fans, and exactly what the owners demanded when he got here, want to see.

The real question is wether ownership will let him fire Torts, thereby completely highlighting their involvement in his hiring.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4187
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

Re: Gillis' Line in the Sand

Postby ukcanuck » Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:45 am

Island Nucklehead wrote:It was speculated that Torts was an ownership hire from the Get-Go.

Clearly you believe such speculation...why?
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2429
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Gillis' Line in the Sand

Postby Island Nucklehead » Fri Apr 04, 2014 3:33 am

ukcanuck wrote:
Island Nucklehead wrote:It was speculated that Torts was an ownership hire from the Get-Go.

Clearly you believe such speculation...why?


Well... as HW said in another thread:

I have no doubt Torts was an ownership push. I still don't know why but I know he wasn't high on MG's list.



I tend to listen to knowledgable women.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4187
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

Re: Gillis' Line in the Sand

Postby ukcanuck » Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:14 am

Island Nucklehead wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:
Island Nucklehead wrote:It was speculated that Torts was an ownership hire from the Get-Go.

Clearly you believe such speculation...why?


Well... as HW said in another thread:

I have no doubt Torts was an ownership push. I still don't know why but I know he wasn't high on MG's list.



I tend to listen to knowledgable women.


You listen to the province newspaper too...that is a saw off in my estimation, especially since you might be misinterpreting HW.

There's a tad difference between pushing for Torts and demanding Gillis hire Torts or walk the plank.

Perhaps Tortorella was and is a fit within the organization's plans?

It seems from what HW has told us, Gillis has been the GM of a franchise by commitee since day one so it's not unreasonable to suggest that Gillis likes Tortorella and agrees with the decision even if he might have preferred Dallas Eakins...

Which raises an interesting thought, where would we be with Eakins now??
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2429
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Gillis' Line in the Sand

Postby Uncle dans leg » Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:55 am

^hopefully looking at Sam Reinhart or Aaron Ekblad....

We have sucked for 2+ years and middling through another season only to be bitch-slapped out if another 1st round embarrass-fest of a playoff wasn't doing anything for the team.

The Canucks needed a coach that can drag them down to draft top picks for the next couple of years in order to build a new dynasty. Obviously Eakins would've enabled a deeper level of suckage which is why he would've clearly been the better choice than "totorella & 10th"
nobody forks with...the jesus
User avatar
Uncle dans leg
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: Lethbridge AB

Re: Gillis' Line in the Sand

Postby ukcanuck » Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:16 am

Here's a better question, if Gillis doesn't have autonomy over his hires and trades and every decision is by commitee with Gillis presumably having the final word on some matters and not others.
How much autonomy does Torts have? At the end of training camp when the roster was being firmed up and the two last rookies were being considered, who made the call to send them down and who decided to replace them with waiver pick ups and trades?

Did Torts make a command decision on calling Lack the starter over Luongo out of left field or did he know that the luongo deal was in the pipeline?
If he gets fired next week when the season is done then that might be a clue, but if doesn't, then it might suggest that torts knew about the trade negotiations and took a risk?

Just speculation here... But I'm wondering if Gillis gets another shot because not all the shitty moves were his fault alone then wouldn't that extend to Torts.

What's that expression about a camel being a horse designed by commitee?

You can't peg it all on one guy would be right.
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2429
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Gillis' Line in the Sand

Postby Meds » Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:31 am

Torts is a good coach with a good record.

Torts may not have been a good fit for this roster, hard to say considering injuries and more goaltending drama and what-have-you.....there is a short list of players (2), IMHO, who are definitely NOT good fits for a team with Torts as the coach.

Torts was likely NOT a good fit here in a season that saw a salary cap rollback that tied the GM's hands as far as moving and signing players that would fit with Torts.

Torts has proven that he is too similar to VIgneault when it comes utilizing young talent, see one Niklas Jensen.

Gillis has been an above average GM all things considered. He hasn't been stellar, but he's far from piss poor. A piss poor GM would have axed Tortorella at the beginning of March and taken the directionless ship into a maelstrom just for the sake of sinking it because he wasn't sure what else to do but felt he needed to do something for appearances sake when the cap rollback was making it almost impossible to do much in the way of roster changes.

So if Gillis is indeed at the helm going forward, then he is at the point come draft day where he has a month or so to steer the ship back on course, and for the sake of the team, the fans, and Gillis himself, I hope he doesn't just replace Torts and then point to the new coach as his "reset button".
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3331
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Gillis' Line in the Sand

Postby RoyalDude » Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:49 am

Torts was the Aqualinis guy

John Stevens was Gillis guy

Gillis bended, buying into the idea that maybe a boot camp Mike Keenan style coach in Torts could be the match to light a fire under this veteran groups behinds. It has failed miserably. This team will never be the big bad bruins, that takes years to build that kind of team in this day and age of building a certain style of team in the NHL. You work with what you have and Torts isn't the right coach for this group. I have faith that the Aqualinis see this and have maybe, the 3 spoiled brats have finally learned to stop fucking meddling with the GMs vision.

Eakins was never gonna get the job
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate
User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4483
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Gillis' Line in the Sand

Postby ukcanuck » Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:57 am

RoyalDude wrote:Torts was the Aqualinis guy

John Stevens was Gillis guy

Gillis bended, buying into the idea that maybe a boot camp Mike Keenan style coach in Torts could be the match to light a fire under this veteran groups behinds. It has failed miserably. This team will never be the big bad bruins, that takes years to build that kind of team in this day and age of building a certain style of team in the NHL. You work with what you have and Torts isn't the right coach for this group. I have faith that the Aqualinis see this and have maybe, the 3 spoiled brats have finally learned to stop fucking meddling with the GMs vision.

Eakins was never gonna get the job

did you read your crystal ball for that information or was it written on the bottom of your beer can?

you seem awfully certain for fly on the wall that most certainly everyone there would notice...
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2429
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Gillis' Line in the Sand

Postby Hockey Widow » Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:08 am

I tend to agree with the Dude. Eakins was not getting the job here. Wasn't Torts the only guy called back for a second interview? Didn't Torts says is was weird being in an interview like that? Didn't word leak out that MG was more impressed after the first interview than he thought he would be? My sense is MG wanted that second interview because of the pressure that was being put on him to hire Torts. He wasn't convinced at first and wanted a second chat. He came around but I think he reluctantly did so.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3912
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Gillis' Line in the Sand

Postby ukcanuck » Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:15 am

I'm just a little sceptical with all the inside knowledge about who, what, where, when and why all of a sudden.

I know HW, you have your sources and I'm not disputing them, just wondering about the amazing jumps to conclusions lately...
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2429
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Gillis' Line in the Sand

Postby Hockey Widow » Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:23 pm

ukcanuck wrote:I'm just a little sceptical with all the inside knowledge about who, what, where, when and why all of a sudden.

I know HW, you have your sources and I'm not disputing them, just wondering about the amazing jumps to conclusions lately...



The Torts thing isn't a sudden jump to conclusion. This was talked to death when Torts was hired. It's being rehashed now obviously because of the season we had.

That we have active owners is not new news either. It has been talked about for ages.

But yes, it is still rumour and speculation for me as I haven't heard anything directly from the parties involved.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3912
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Gillis' Line in the Sand

Postby ukcanuck » Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:35 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:I'm just a little sceptical with all the inside knowledge about who, what, where, when and why all of a sudden.

I know HW, you have your sources and I'm not disputing them, just wondering about the amazing jumps to conclusions lately...



The Torts thing isn't a sudden jump to conclusion. This was talked to death when Torts was hired. It's being rehashed now obviously because of the season we had.

That we have active owners is not new news either. It has been talked about for ages.

But yes, it is still rumour and speculation for me as I haven't heard anything directly from the parties involved.


I seem to remember the question about influence was put to Gillis when he hired Tortorella and the answer was that ownership had input on every decision the team made. I take that at face value.

Where does the idea that it was a commitee decision to choose torts devolve into Gillis being forced to hire Tortorella against his will and taking another step forward on what grounds does anyone know which candidate Gillis preferred or would have hired had he sole control of the decision.

That last part to me is the jump to a conclusion whether it' was Eakins or Stevens or someone else


Don't get me wrong I don't doubt it's possible that it happens as the rumours suggest, I know that usually where there is smoke there is fire.
Last edited by ukcanuck on Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2429
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Next

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], ESQ, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], herb, TDA Rum and 23 guests