Former Canucks: Players & Management (Kevin Bieksa retirement watch)

[timw33]

All aboard the feels train

Ugh. That team was magical. A nice reminder of how extremely far off our current team is from being a contender again.

 

[Hit the post]

Yes, but of the 4 J's: Jensen Jenner Jurco, Jaskin, he's clearly the weakest. Not to mention Saad, Kucherov, Gibson, Ritchie, V.Rask, Nieto, W.Karlson going in the next 30 picks. And Rakell going immediately after him.

heh...Saad was sooooo good, I think 30 teams passed on selecting him at least once (including the Hawks THREE TIMES!).

 

[RobertKron]

That's not what I recall. I thought the belief was that Schaefer was a better fit on the bottom 6 (Morrison being small, old, and weak).

IIRC, the canucks were up against it to come out of camp below the cap. They either had to waive Schaefer and then recall him after declaring their opening roster, or sign him after the initial roster deadline in order to get under, as I believe they had to have Salo (and burrows?) on the roster to use their LTIR exemptions.

They probably said Schaefer was a better fit or whatever, but Morrison had put up 40 points the previous season and signed a one-way with Calgary and it was pretty obvious that they couldn't make that work with all the wiggling they had to do around the cap that fall (and entire year). I think they were like 3.something over going into camp.

 

[Hit the post]

They probably said Schaefer was a better fit or whatever, but Morrison had put up 40 points the previous season and signed a one-way with Calgary and it was pretty obvious that they couldn't make that work with all the wiggling they had to do around the cap that fall (and entire year).

Wasn't that the season where the Flames had to ice LESS than full roster *on purpose* because of cap reasons? Weak-azz response from the league in not penalizing the Flames for that (bet the Canucks would've been slapped with a fine).

 

[RobertKron]

Wasn't that the season where the Flames had to ice LESS than full roster *on purpose* because of cap reasons? Weak-azz response from the league in not penalizing the Flames for that (bet the Canucks would've been slapped with a fine).

I could be wrong, but I think that was an earlier season.

 

[F A N]

IIRC, the canucks were up against it to come out of camp below the cap. They either had to waive Schaefer and then recall him after declaring their opening roster, or sign him after the initial roster deadline in order to get under, as I believe they had to have Salo (and burrows?) on the roster to use their LTIR exemptions.

They probably said Schaefer was a better fit or whatever, but Morrison had put up 40 points the previous season and signed a one-way with Calgary and it was pretty obvious that they couldn't make that work with all the wiggling they had to do around the cap that fall (and entire year). I think they were like 3.something over going into camp.

So you think salary had a lot to do with it? I mean Schaefer was in the opening lineup and was only waived when the team decided to part ways. I also think Morrison would have been pretty accommodating if it meant playing for the Canucks. The difference between what Schaefer and Morrison signed for was $100k at the NHL level. I still think the Canucks were simply looking for more of a grinder and Morrison didn't fit that profile as well.

 

[Verviticus]

honestly he's incoherent at best so i don't try very hard to understand him

thank ****ing god

 

[RobertKron]

So you think salary had a lot to do with it? I mean Schaefer was in the opening lineup and was only waived when the team decided to part ways. I also think Morrison would have been pretty accommodating if it meant playing for the Canucks. The difference between what Schaefer and Morrison signed for was $100k at the NHL level. I still think the Canucks were simply looking for more of a grinder and Morrison didn't fit that profile as well.

Schaefer was waived when Burrows returned (I believe, at least), sent to the AHL, refused to report, was suspended by the team, and then the team parted ways with him a couple days later when he signed in Germany.

As I said, the big deal would have likely been the two-way contract, since one-way deals demoted off the roster still counted in full against the cap at that time. The team couldn't even sign Schaefer immediately coming out of camp because they were over the cap until they did some wiggling with the LTIR and whatnot (FWIW, Schaefer hadn't been signed yet when Morrison signed with the Flames), and I can't remember if they carried the full 23 players.

 

[F A N]

Schaefer was waived when Burrows returned (I believe, at least), sent to the AHL, refused to report, was suspended by the team, and then the team parted ways with him a couple days later when he signed in Germany.

He was waived because he was ineffective though.

As I said, the big deal would have likely been the two-way contract, since one-way deals demoted off the roster still counted in full against the cap at that time. The team couldn't even sign Schaefer immediately coming out of camp because they were over the cap until they did some wiggling with the LTIR and whatnot (FWIW, Schaefer hadn't been signed yet when Morrison signed with the Flames), and I can't remember if they carried the full 23 players.

The bolded is incorrect. You were allowed to bury contracts in the minors at the time (e.g. Wade Redden). The biggest difference is that Schaefer's minor league salary was structured so that he didn't require re-entry waivers while one-way contracts did. Teams who sign players to PTOs have exclusive negotiating rights for a certain period of time. Morrison was released before the end of the negotiating period because the Canucks weren't going to sign him and I believe Schaefer was signed before it was over as well.

 

[RobertKron]

He was waived because he was ineffective though.



The bolded is incorrect. You were allowed to bury contracts in the minors at the time (e.g. Wade Redden). The biggest difference is that Schaefer's minor league salary was structured so that he didn't require re-entry waivers while one-way contracts did. Teams who sign players to PTOs have exclusive negotiating rights for a certain period of time. Morrison was released before the end of the negotiating period because the Canucks weren't going to sign him and I believe Schaefer was signed before it was over as well.

****, you're absolutely correct on the burying thing - not sure how I muddled that up. I think I started that thought train angling on the cap penalty for a player being taken on re-entries and then got sidetracked.

My main point, though, was that it was a priority of the Canucks that this player be on a two-way because they were being signed to essentially hold a spot until Burrows was healthy. As the team got healthy, they needed flexibility to demote players, and as they'd learned in previous years, they'd need flexibility to make roster moves as the inevitable Vancouver Mountain of Injuries piled up.

 

[Pip]

Yes, but of the 4 J's: Jensen Jenner Jurco, Jaskin, he's clearly the weakest. Not to mention Saad, Kucherov, Gibson, Ritchie, V.Rask, Nieto, W.Karlson going in the next 30 picks. And Rakell going immediately after him.

We probably hit on one of those players if we had another top 40 pick. If Chicago only had their first pick they would have walked away with Mark McNeill

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

IIRC, the canucks were up against it to come out of camp below the cap. They either had to waive Schaefer and then recall him after declaring their opening roster, or sign him after the initial roster deadline in order to get under, as I believe they had to have Salo (and burrows?) on the roster to use their LTIR exemptions.

They probably said Schaefer was a better fit or whatever, but Morrison had put up 40 points the previous season and signed a one-way with Calgary and it was pretty obvious that they couldn't make that work with all the wiggling they had to do around the cap that fall (and entire year). I think they were like 3.something over going into camp.

The Canucks had enough cap space at the time to retain Morrison. I believe the decision came down to him or someone else (not Schaefer.) I can't for the life of me remember who it was.

 

[timw33]

The Canucks had enough cap space at the time to retain Morrison. I believe the decision came down to him or someone else (not Schaefer.) I can't for the life of me remember who it was.

It was Schaeffer, who was willing to sign a two way deal and was gone after 16 games. It's a shame cause our scoring depth got hurt big time in the last two rounds of the playoffs (Samuelson Raymond Kesler Malholtra all injured or playing injured) and could have used a bit of depth skill at the time. Our farm team that year IIRC had pretty weak depth (Bolduc, Oreskovich, Mancari types IIRC).

 

[RobertKron]

It was Schaeffer, who was willing to sign a two way deal and was gone after 16 games. It's a shame cause our scoring depth got hurt big time in the last two rounds of the playoffs (Samuelson Raymond Kesler Malholtra all injured or playing injured) and could have used a bit of depth skill at the time. Our farm team that year IIRC had pretty weak depth (Bolduc, Oreskovich, Mancari types IIRC).

FWIW, Tambellini started the year on the farm. They had Shirokov, Hodgson down there. Also, Andersson who got hurt a ton, and Perreault, who was traded for Lapierre.

I'd imagine they weren't expecting Schaefer to decide to head overseas, too.

 

[F A N]

It was Schaeffer, who was willing to sign a two way deal and was gone after 16 games. It's a shame cause our scoring depth got hurt big time in the last two rounds of the playoffs (Samuelson Raymond Kesler Malholtra all injured or playing injured) and could have used a bit of depth skill at the time. Our farm team that year IIRC had pretty weak depth (Bolduc, Oreskovich, Mancari types IIRC).

We did have a player who was capable of providing scoring depth. His name was Cody or Hodgson. He was hanging out in the dog house and waiting for AV to let him out to play.

 

[racerjoe]

It was Schaeffer, who was willing to sign a two way deal and was gone after 16 games. It's a shame cause our scoring depth got hurt big time in the last two rounds of the playoffs (Samuelson Raymond Kesler Malholtra all injured or playing injured) and could have used a bit of depth skill at the time. Our farm team that year IIRC had pretty weak depth (Bolduc, Oreskovich, Mancari types IIRC).

Hank was also very injured... along with pretty much our entire d core... and probably more.

We did have a player who was capable of providing scoring depth. His name was Cody or Hodgson. He was hanging out in the dog house and waiting for AV to let him out to play.

Did we though? The next season keep in mind he was given high offensive zone starts with lots of advantages, was he someone we could actually count on being a positive contributor? I honestly have no clue.

 

[F A N]

Did we though? The next season keep in mind he was given high offensive zone starts with lots of advantages, was he someone we could actually count on being a positive contributor? I honestly have no clue.

I think so. We are talking about scoring depth here right? Hodgson's skill level certainly would have allowed him to provide more scoring than AV favourite Tanner Glass, Bolduc, Oreskovich etc. Keep in mind that the 2010-2011 team was a great team and surely able to cover for whatever defensive deficiencies Hodgson had.

It's probably true that the Canucks did "prop up" Hodgson in order to trade him. But the next season, he also put up 15 goals 34 points in 48 games. Those are good numbers regardless of offensive zone starts or PP time etc. Clearly, Hodgson at his best was capable of producing offensively at the NHL level.

 

[RobertKron]

I think so. We are talking about scoring depth here right? Hodgson's skill level certainly would have allowed him to provide more scoring than AV favourite Tanner Glass, Bolduc, Oreskovich etc. Keep in mind that the 2010-2011 team was a great team and surely able to cover for whatever defensive deficiencies Hodgson had.

It's probably true that the Canucks did "prop up" Hodgson in order to trade him. But the next season, he also put up 15 goals 34 points in 48 games. Those are good numbers regardless of offensive zone starts or PP time etc. Clearly, Hodgson at his best was capable of producing offensively at the NHL level.

The team had like one healthy defenseman.

Also, he wasn't especially effective that playoff run.

 

[MS]

10-11 Hodgson was not ready to contribute. Was a 40 point AHL player who was a complete disaster defensively.

 

[DL44]

Willie Desjardins fronts Canadian Olympic hockey coaching staff

Just saw this now.

Willie D will be the coach of Team Canada at the Olympics!

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/winter/watch-hockey-canada-olympic-announcement-1.4220399

Pretty much a clear cut sign for anyone expecting a last minute switch that there will be NO NHL participation.

 

[The Stig]

Just saw this now.

Willie D will be the coach of Team Canada at the Olympics!

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/winter/watch-hockey-canada-olympic-announcement-1.4220399

Pretty much a clear cut sign for anyone expecting a last minute switch that there will be NO NHL participation.

Lol dear lord...

 

[black ace]

Gillis has been rumored to be considered for a few jobs. i think Buffalo was the last.

http://theprovince.com/sports/hocke...ks-execs-gillis-gilman-connected-to-islanders

https://twitter.com/jsportsnet/status/855446011761889280?lang=en

Most GM's when fired take a lower level position to stay in the business but Gillis never did. Cant imagine that helped his chance of getting another job.

 

[Iceberg Slim]

I'm guessing Gilligan is STILL drawing a pretty good cheque from Aquaman. The owner is many things but cheap ain't one of them.

I believe Gillis still had 4 years remaining on his contract when fired so that would mean he's still getting paid through 2018 (at around $2 million per IIRC).

 

[Iceberg Slim]

Gillis has been rumored to be considered for a few jobs. i think Buffalo was the last.

http://theprovince.com/sports/hocke...ks-execs-gillis-gilman-connected-to-islanders

https://twitter.com/jsportsnet/status/855446011761889280?lang=en

Most GM's when fired take a lower level position to stay in the business but Gillis never did. Cant imagine that helped his chance of getting another job.

It'll be interesting to see if Gillis considers one of those "lower level positions" after he runs out his contract with the Aquilinis.

Perhaps it's been largely a financial decision for Gillis in that taking a lesser management role would mean a pay cut (as his new salary wouldn't be as high as what the Canucks are still paying him).

On a side note, I seem to remember a story about Luigi Aquilini trying to get Gillis to accept a reduced role in 2013. Something about splitting off some of his duties. IIRC Gillis, after a promotion in 2009, was, actually president and CEO of Canucks Sports and Entertainment (like the whole enchilada) and Papa Aquilini wanted to separate hockey operations from some of the business side (which they eventually did when they hired the new regime), and shift some of Gillis's duties over to other people (also there were rumours of the family wanting to take on a more formal role within hockey ops). Not sure if this would have involved a renegotiation/restructuring of contract. In any case, Gillis apparently refused.

Dunno if this speaks more to Gillis's lack of interest in a lesser management role or if the circumstances at that time were just too bitter a pill for him to swallow.

Also seem to remember the senior Aquilini wanting to again try to shift Gillis into a reduced role (after the Canucks relieving him of duties in 2014) but still keeping him within the company but the sons wanting to fire him outright.

Can't find sources on this stuff (most of it was just rumours and chatter anyway). Just things I remember hearing about during the last couple of Gillis years.

 

[PM]

The class he was teaching at UVIC was apparently very good and quite popular. I don't see him listed on the staff directory so he might not be there anymore. Can you imagine Benning teaching a class of any sorts anywhere?