varano
Registered User
- Jun 27, 2013
- 5,161
- 1,917
Correct me if I'm wrong but werent most of the players that gillis had from the previous regime?GM of the year who almost got us a cup and missed the playoffs once vs. a guy claiming to have assembled a playoff team and on pace to finish in the bottom three for three straight years. Really tough question.
A GM isn't judged solely on the players they bring in, but also on who they keep. Look at Benning, he let plenty of good players go for nothing/almost nothing. Gillis and Gilman did a fantastic job keeping the team under the cap as well.Correct me if I'm wrong but werent most of the players that gillis had from the previous regime?
I still appreciate the fact that they bought malholtra out for his safety... That was a good move.A GM isn't judged solely on the players they bring in, but also on who they keep. Look at Benning, he let plenty of good players go for nothing/almost nothing. Gillis and Gilman did a fantastic job keeping the team under the cap as well.
A GM isn't judged solely on the players they bring in, but also on who they keep. Look at Benning, he let plenty of good players go for nothing/almost nothing. Gillis and Gilman did a fantastic job keeping the team under the cap as well.
I hate this game because the only GM who doesn't inherit a core group is an expansion GM. IMO what the GM does with his core should be how you base the success. You think that Canucks core goes to the SCF with Nonis in charge? Because I don't...Correct me if I'm wrong but werent most of the players that gillis had from the previous regime?
They were an amazing team. Followed them during the cup run.I hate this game because the only GM who doesn't inherit a core group is an expansion GM. IMO what the GM does with his core should be how you base the success. You think that Canucks core goes to the SCF with Nonis in charge? Because I don't...
This has been stated sooo many times on this board & by Gilman on 1040 but one of the main successes of the Gillis era was getting core guys to sign below market deals so they could ice a deep team.
Gillis brought us to a Game 7 of the SCF & was the GM of the most entertaining NHL team I've ever had the pleasure of watch 82 games of. It may be sacrilege to some but I think he's the best GM we ever had & that includes Pat
Do you think they go to a cup finals with Nonis in charge?They were an amazing team. Followed them during the cup run.
My point is that he inherited a bunch of really good players and it certainly wasnt a scrub team by any means that he inherited. Some GM's inherit trash.
I dont think nonis is a good GM on his own. He's always been a better second banana than he has as THE GUY.Do you think they go to a cup finals with Nonis in charge?
I hate this game because the only GM who doesn't inherit a core group is an expansion GM. IMO what the GM does with his core should be how you base the success. You think that Canucks core goes to the SCF with Nonis in charge? Because I don't...
This has been stated sooo many times on this board & by Gilman on 1040 but one of the main successes of the Gillis era was getting core guys to sign below market deals so they could ice a deep team.
Gillis brought us to a Game 7 of the SCF & was the GM of the most entertaining NHL team I've ever had the pleasure of watch 82 games of. It may be sacrilege to some but I think he's the best GM we ever had & that includes Pat
They were an amazing team. Followed them during the cup run.
My point is that he inherited a bunch of really good players and it certainly wasnt a scrub team by any means that he inherited. Some GM's inherit trash.
If you look back... I havent said one side or the other. Relax.Your point is meaningless because, like some said already, there's no such thing as a GM who did not in some way shape or form inherent players from previous regime, aside from expansion.
Yzerman arrived after Lightning picked out Stamkos, does that less his success? **** no.
Saying Gillis has his flaws is perfectly reasonable because it's completely true. Standing there saying Benning is better than Gillis is nothing short of lunacy.
If you look back... I havent said one side or the other. Relax.
I dont think nonis is a good GM on his own. He's always been a better second banana than he has as THE GUY.
Well Luongos contract would be pretty good nowadays. I get what he was doing there. I think the way the goalie situation went down was handled poorly though. The poor drafting was also a tough pill to swallow.It's fair to say that Gillis had more to work with in 2008 than Benning did in 2014.
But Gillis took what he was given, made a bunch of smart signings and trades, and lifted the franchise to the next level — his first three years here were absolutely brilliant. Drafting during his tenure was not great (though we were usually picking lower down because the team was so successful), and he was too slow to recognize this and revamp the scouting staff. Plus he lost the plot a bit from 2012 onward, although the league really screwed us over with Luongo's contract. But on the whole, he got a lot out of what Nonis/Burke had left him.
On the other hand, Benning took over a still-decent team in need of a retool that had some valuable assets on hand (a #6 overall pick, the Kesler trade chip, a bunch of tradable veterans) and turned us into one of the most miserable franchises in the league. The only saving grace is that we now have a few promising prospects (thanks in part to picking so high), although that's offset by the fact that he tends to trade away picks and valuable prospects (Forsling, McCann) for useless crap.
Trajectory matters way more than starting point, and on that score, I don't think it's really close between the two.
What on earth are you talking about?A Toronto fan I take it? So how big a fan are you of Burke/Nonis in Toronto? Because right now half of Toronto's lineup and most of the key pieces are from Burke & Nonis. If you want to look at it that way then Shanahan/Lou just won a draft lottery and tinkered a little around the edges.
He could have NOT TRADED FOR Luca Sbisa.Well Luongos contract would be pretty good nowadays. I get what he was doing there. I think the way the goalie situation went down was handled poorly though. The poor drafting was also a tough pill to swallow.
Benning had really limited choices with Kesler. He got what he could. Kesler screwed over the team by offering limited trade options.
And if Bob said no?He could have NOT TRADED FOR Luca Sbisa.
"I said no Bob. I don't want your trash players. This is our top goal scorer we're talking about."
As opposed
"Bob, I insist you throw in a top 4 d-man."
This limited trade options is BS.
Luca actively made our team worse and Jimbo reupped him at the expense of forward veteran center depth.
Those are the facts.