Toggle sidebar

Reclamation projects/re-development during Gillis' tenure

Ziostilon

Ziostilon

Registered User
Feb 14, 2009
3,829
23
I'll separate it into three categories:
A) Successful- Better than when you acquired this player
B) Unsuccessful- This player continued their decline from when you acquired them
C) Neutral- The player did not get better or worse

Talking points:
  • Agree/Disagree- should a player be moved to another category?
  • Your views on Gillis' and Co. reclamation record
  • Your suggestion to Gillis' future reclamation/re-development projects

A) Tanner Glass, Aaron Rome, Chris Higgins, Maxim Lapierre, Dale Weise, Mike Santorelli, tbd: Brad Richardson, Jeremy Welsh

B) Steve Bernier, David Booth, Cam Barker, Ryan Parent, Jeff Tambellini, Byron Bitz
tbd: Zac Dalpe

C) Shane O'Brien, Kyle Wellwood, Victor Oreskovich, Peter Schaefer, Lee Sweatt, Jonas Andersson, Marc-Andre Gragnani, Mike Duco, Steve Pinizzotto

Record- [A-B-C] 8 - 7 - 9
Click to read more...
 
Bure All Day

Bure All Day

Registered User
Mar 29, 2012
4,978
2
Vancouver
I think Tambellini was good for us. Not sure how he got stuck in the doghouse, because he was solid defensively and had some nice bursts of offense, plus great in the shootout.

Also, I think you're missing Samuelsson in the 'Success' category. Was much better than I think anybody anticipated.

I also think Richardson can be considered a success by now based on his accomplishments. Great pker/defensive forward and has produced more offense than I expected at least
 
Hansen

Hansen

tyler motte simp
Oct 12, 2011
23,759
9,440
Nanaimo, B.C.
Byron Bitz was effective during his time here and that major penalty in the playoffs should not have decided his career as a Canuck
 
Pip

Pip

Registered User
Feb 2, 2012
69,191
8,522
Granduland
Would move Barker, Tambellini, and Bitz from the second category.

Barker was simply a terrible player, he didn't really get worse here, we just found out how bad he really was.

Jeff was good enough for us, I would put in in the third one.

Bitz, see above.
 
me2

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Add Ballard to the failed reclaimation projects. Struggling in Florida, paid a good price but he never turned it around, got bought out.


Guys like Barker were failed reclaimation projects because they never turned it around at all. However they were buy low and turned out as advertised.
 

Verviticus

Registered User
Jul 23, 2010
12,664
592
you should probably differentiate the ones that caused a problem (played too much: barker, cap space: booth) versus the ones that were dealt with through whatever means (sturm, tambellini)

also i disagree on tambo. he played well and then got doghoused out
 
bossram

bossram

Registered User
Sep 25, 2013
15,611
14,955
Victoria
Bernier was actually a decent player for us. We pretty much got what you would expect from him. Tambellini was serviceable. I think they should both be category B.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,742
5,966
I don't know if some of the names on the list should be called reclamation projects. I mean there really wasn't much to "re-claim" with some of the guys on your list. Were Glass, Pinnizotto, Duco, Bitz, Oreskovich, Rome, Tambellini, Lee Sweatt, Richardson, Barker etc. really reclamation projects?

If Tambellini was a reclamation project, then so was a guy like Ebbett. Both were signed to two-way contracts who naturally weren't expected to be every day players or even spend their entire time with the Canucks. If Barker was a reclamation project then so was a guy like Rob Davison. Both players were signed to be one-year, one-way deals for essentially the league minimum and really weren't expected to be any more than a #7th defensemen. Dale Weise/Ryan Stanton types were guys the waiver rules were made for. They were limited upside guys who were were pretty much NHL ready but failed to crack the NHL lineup and ended up being picked up by another NHL team. Not exactly the classic definition of reclamation projects. Guys like Lee Sweatt were essentially prospects and if you consider him a reclamation project you might as well add his brother Bill Sweatt and Tanev etc. I suppose Brad Richardson can be considered somewhat of a reclamation project considering he spent a lot of time as a healthy scratch last season, but in reality he was a veteran UFA signing who came as advertised. Other guys like Aaron Rome, Weber, and Gragnani were minor reclamation projects considering they were guys who at one time looked like they were on their way to becoming NHL players only to suffer setbacks the previous season the Canucks acquired them. Guys like Oreskovich belongs with the Duco group. Guys who were potential NHL players but didn't develop into one.

Marco Sturm: Unsucessful

Kyle Wellwood: Successful. Wellwood was a defensive liability who was on his way out of the NHL until the Canucks acquired him. Wellwood managed to change his game and evolved into a solid 3rd line center who was defensively responsible.

Tambellini should be considered a success or neutral IMO if he is considered a reclamation project, because he was signed to a two-way contract but ended up spending most of his season with the Canucks.

Byron Bitz was on a two-way contract and belongs with the Pinnizzoto crowd.

Given your list, you can probably make a case for Ehrhoff being a reclamation success.

Should probably add Sestito to the successes or neutrals.

Goalies like Labarbera and Raycroft should be considered successes.

I think the important thing is that there's little harm when Gillis decides to take on a reclamation project. Most of the time we're talking about players expected to play a depth role or be in the AHL, unlike Nonis who would sign reclamation projects to play significant roles. Gillis' biggest reclamation project was Sturm and he rectified the situation immediately.
 
deckercky

deckercky

Registered User
Oct 27, 2010
9,379
2,452
bossram said:
Bernier was actually a decent player for us. We pretty much got what you would expect from him. Tambellini was serviceable. I think they should both be category B.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Once the team stopped forcing him into a top 6 role, he was great. Not the top 6 player the team hoped, but Bernier was very good at something, which is a great thing to have (I feel like teams thought of him as a failed top 6 until New Jersey signed him as a bottom 6 option).
 
Barney Gumble

Barney Gumble

Registered User
Jan 2, 2007
22,711
1
Jyrki21 said:
Wellwood was an unmitigated (or barely mitigated) success, I'd argue. I think O'Brien too, while not a reclamation project to begin with, had some of his best years in Vancouver.
Click to expand...
Here's something to ponder....

Look at how many of those "reclamation projects" continued to play in the NHL *after* they left the Canucks; compare that to the "reclamation projects" of some former Canucks GM.:naughty:
 

Tiranis

Registered User
Jun 10, 2009
23,097
28
Toronto, ON
Verviticus said:
also i disagree on tambo. he played well and then got doghoused out
Click to expand...

Still don't understand what came over AV. Guy was scoring a ton and then went 2 or 3 games without a point (while still racking up shots) and suddenly found himself demoted without any hope of getting his spot back. Not like he was doing badly possession-wise or not paying attention to defense either.

As for Ballard, I don't know how anyone could call him a reclamation project.
 
tc 23

tc 23

#GaunceForGM
Dec 11, 2012
11,358
21
Vancouver
Tiranis said:
Still don't understand what came over AV. Guy was scoring a ton and then went 2 or 3 games without a point (while still racking up shots) and suddenly found himself demoted without any hope of getting his spot back. Not like he was doing badly possession-wise or not paying attention to defense either.

As for Ballard, I don't know how anyone could call him a reclamation project.
Click to expand...

Yeah, same. I quite liked Tambo during the 2010-2011 season.
 
TheWanderer

TheWanderer

Registered User
Nov 15, 2013
4,959
32
I wouldn't call Richardson a reclaimation project. We signed him as a 4th liner (or, if desparate, a 3rd liner). Just because he's been a huge surprise doesn't mean he's a reclamation project. Same reason Samuelsson isn't in here.

Should undrafted players count? Or is that entirely separate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom