How much demerits is a first round knock out worth against a GM ?

[Zarpan]

Offense is pretty important, as we've seen. Not everybody is a five-tool guy. Ehrhoff's defensive game was never a strength of his, but did it matter? Not really, with the value that he added to his offensively.

And yes, I have disparaged the Garrison signing quite a bit. To me, he's a #4 - #6 d-man with a big shot (that hits the net ~20% of the time), and you just don't give 6-year, NTC-laden deals to guys like that.

So if you think that Garrison is truly that (although I don't), is giving up Connauton such a big deal if his upside is a bottom pairing d-man with poor defensive skills?

Connauton's probable only advantage over Garrison is speed. He's not a playmaker like Ehrhoff. Doesn't have the vision for that. Garrison has a big advantage over Connauton in terms of hockey IQ and actually being able to play defense.

 

[Zarpan]

I think its less than that.

If I'm not mistaken 1st rounders are at about 25%.

It depends on how you define useful player. I was defining it as someone who could carve out a NHL career as something other than a 4th line player or #6-7 defenseman.

So someone like Latendresse would count as a useful player although he's not really someone you'd want in your top 6 if you were a good team.

In that case, you actually come out with a reasonable number of 2nd round picks that turn into long-term NHL players.

 

[nameless1]

I would argue that he is the problem. Last year at the State of the Franchise address he was asked if he has plans to improve our offense. His answer was no, and that he thought our offense was good enough. Clearly he hadn't learned at all from the previous two playoffs, and now we're seeing the same old garbage for a third straight year. That is not acceptable.

Gillis has let key components leave this team without replacing those components. He's let the team lose its mobile puck moving defenseman which is what gave us a dangerous and swift transition game. He's allowed us to lose a very physical third liner who wasn't afraid to hit and create energy. He's allowed us to lose our once dominant faceoff ability.

Bringing in plugs like Ebbett, Weise, and Barker have done nothing for this team.

Injuries really derailed everything.
Who knows where this team will be if Booth is able to play a whole season?
If Booth played the whole season...
He may have been able to develop chemistry with Kesler...
And then the offence may actually be enough...
It is all speculation on my part...
But it could be a possibility.
I certainly would not blame Gillis for injuries.

Injuries happened...
And the team still won its division...
Playing absolutely brutal hockey at times.
That is where the depth he accumulated came in.
Guys like Ebbet and Barker are stop gap measures...
They are not asked to win hockey games...
But to only fill in for injured players...
And they did their job.
We only saw them so much because of injuries...
And while they receive the bane of our criticism...
I hardly think they are the reason the team played so poorly this season.

Of everything you have listed...
I think the biggest thing was that he did not bring in Manny's replacement.
Manny was already a great unknown with his eye...
Yet he trusted Manny's own assessment...
And did not have a backup plan.
Cap wise would be fine too...
With Kesler and Booth both out in the beginning of the year.
That's my biggest gripe with him...
Because the 3rd line center was the biggest hole with this team.

 

[VeteranNetPresence]

i can't wait until this guy is gone. he has been overrated by this fanbase for too long

 

[GranvilleIsland]

Gillis is about to find out.

 

[Tiranis]

If Gillis was actually at risk of getting fired, AV would've gotten fired sooner or he would've had him play the type of hockey Gillis wants rather than letting AV do whatever he wants. The fact that he just left AV alone to play his type of hockey indicates that AV's job was on the line this year while Gillis' wasn't.

 

[Street Hawk]

If Gillis was actually at risk of getting fired, AV would've gotten fired sooner or he would've had him play the type of hockey Gillis wants rather than letting AV do whatever he wants. The fact that he just left AV alone to play his type of hockey indicates that AV's job was on the line this year while Gillis' wasn't.

Agree with the assessment. AV is toast, as well as all of the assistants.

Thing is though, the new coach would be wise to find out the direction of the franchise first and foremost before accepting the job.

Is Gillis going to accept that he's seen the best from the Sedins and this is it for them. They turn 33 before the end of the calendar year. Time to move them is now if you can't bring in offensive depth behind them.

And with the amount of contract he has tied up already, not likely to occur.

Where are MG's drafted players? 2008-2010 draft class, it's time for them to show something.

They need a teacher for the D if a youngster like Corrado makes the big club next season. Need to develop him the proper way.

 

[Nucker101]

If Gillis was actually at risk of getting fired, AV would've gotten fired sooner or he would've had him play the type of hockey Gillis wants rather than letting AV do whatever he wants. The fact that he just left AV alone to play his type of hockey indicates that AV's job was on the line this year while Gillis' wasn't.

It could also mean that maybe Gillis has in fact been convinced by AV and after the Bruins series that this team has to win games playing a "gritty" defensive style and squeaking out 2-1 wins. It seems to me he underestimated the value of skill and offensive ability of that series by letting players like Ehrhoff walk(could have traded/waived Ballard to re-sign him), ditto with the Hodgson trade(maybe he did want out, but Gillis could have waited until the off-season to be more patient with the whole situation and maybe gotten a better return.

I really hope that if Gillis is around for the summer that he hires a coach that has always preferred to play a puck possession, offensive style game of hockey and goes back to building his team that way. I'd also prefer a more emotional, fiery type of coach since it seems like teams usually have better success when they new coach has a completely different style/personality than the previous coach.

 

[TheDiver*]

Mark Messier was signed in 1997, when Arthur Griffiths was the owner, not John McCaw. That was obviously also prior to Bure demanding a trade, and when expectations were pretty high.

WRONG!!!

John McCaw bought the Canucks on November 12th 1996.

That off season, McCaw offered Gretzky more money than anyone, but Gretzky wanted to play with Messier in New York.

Quinn and John Chapple, president of Orca Bay were sent on McCaw's jet to Messier's Summer home in Hilton Head, South Carolina.

Four days later, Messier and his family (dad and brother) headed to San Francisco for a face-to-face meeting with McCaw. The next day, the deal was signed on McCaw's yacht in San Francisco Bay.

This was before the 1997-97 season.

I would argue that he is the problem. Last year at the State of the Franchise address he was asked if he has plans to improve our offense. His answer was no, and that he thought our offense was good enough. Clearly he hadn't learned at all from the previous two playoffs, and now we're seeing the same old garbage for a third straight year. That is not acceptable.

EXACTLY!

Mike Gillis' team has a scoring problem.

He KNEW Kesler would miss most of the season (thank god for the lockout!).

And what did he do to address it?



HE SIGNED/TRADED FOR ZERO NHL FORWARDS?

That's on him.

 

[LolClarkson*]

And between the 2 of Gillis and AV, they managed to burn a year off of Frank Corrado's entry level contract just so Ballard could sit his 4 million dollar butt in the press box.