The Greatest General Managers in Canucks History (#1)

[Frankie Blueberries]

Burke had 3 NHL GM or/and president jobs after leaving Van

Gillis 0

Can it be because in the NHL world, they think a lot more highly of Burke than Gillis. Maybe and just maybe they think he is a better GM as well.

Have a great day

Cool, too bad that’s not what the thread topic is about.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Wow. So much wrong to respond to here. I'll try to focus on the highlights.

You start by criticizing a poster for talking about a GM's performance in a thread explicitly about the performance of GMs.

Next, no other GM has come closer to bringing a Cup to Vancouver than Gillis, but you argue at length that Gillis should be criticized for the Canucks' playoff record during his regime.

You then put Burke ahead of Gillis, even though the Canucks made the playoffs more frequently under Gillis than Burke.

You also chastise Gillis for taking on a cap dump to acquire Erhoff without acknowledging that Gillis skillfully put the Canucks into a position where they could afford a cap dump to acquire a player who was a key component to their success.

Sure, the Canucks drafting wasn't very good under Gillis, but you can't compare top ten picks to late first rounders. Like... you just can't.

You set a low bar for Burke (making the playoffs) while glossing over the fact that Gillis successfully achieved a more difficult standard by assembling an elite team that won consecutive President's trophies and were a game away from winning the Cup.

The Canucks didn't lose the Cup because Gillis failed to acquire enough depth. They lost because their roster was ravaged by injuries while the Bruins were relatively healthy.

Sorry if this is tl;dr

I know its been done to death, but flat out saying we had more depth ,but lost to injuries in 2011 is highly debatable imo..That same Bruins core was SC contending one for almost a decade after that...Ours petered out a year later.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Burke had 3 NHL GM or/and president jobs after leaving Van

Gillis 0

Can it be because in the NHL world, they think a lot more highly of Burke than Gillis. Maybe and just maybe they think he is a better GM as well.

Have a great day

Dave Nonis has also had more jobs since being fired than Mike Gillis, was he a better GM?

Also Burke inherited a lot of his core, or inherited quality pieces that were able to be traded. Burke inherited Naslund, Bertuzzi, Ohlund and McCabe, Bure, and Mogilny that allowed him to trade for a 2nd Sedin, Jovo, and Morrison. Burke inherited just as much or maybe even more from Quinn as Gillis did from Burke. I liked Burke and his trades were excellent, but the "he inherited his core" argument needs to be applied equally if it is going to be used.

 

[Javaman]

I know its been done to death, but flat out saying we had more depth ,but lost to injuries in 2011 is highly debatable imo..That same Bruins core was SC contending one for almost a decade after that...Ours petered out a year later.

I'm not saying the Canucks "had more depth", just countering the suggestion that lack of depth was a black mark against Gillis with regards to the 2011 SC final.

I realize not everyone will agree, but if the Canucks had been as healthy as the Bruins in the final, I'm quite confident that juggernaut of a team finds a way to win one more game.

 

[Canucks1096]

Wow. So much wrong to respond to here. I'll try to focus on the highlights.

You start by criticizing a poster for talking about a GM's performance in a thread explicitly about the performance of GMs.

Next, no other GM has come closer to bringing a Cup to Vancouver than Gillis, but you argue at length that Gillis should be criticized for the Canucks' playoff record during his regime.

You then put Burke ahead of Gillis, even though the Canucks made the playoffs more frequently under Gillis than Burke.

You also chastise Gillis for taking on a cap dump to acquire Erhoff without acknowledging that Gillis skillfully put the Canucks into a position where they could afford a cap dump to acquire a player who was a key component to their success.

Sure, the Canucks drafting wasn't very good under Gillis, but you can't compare top ten picks to late first rounders. Like... you just can't.

You set a low bar for Burke (making the playoffs) while glossing over the fact that Gillis successfully achieved a more difficult standard by assembling an elite team that won consecutive President's trophies and were a game away from winning the Cup.

The Canucks didn't lose the Cup because Gillis failed to acquire enough depth. They lost because their roster was ravaged by injuries while the Bruins were relatively healthy.

Sorry if this is tl;dr

If you're going to say someone is wrong, you need to make sure you get your facts right. Let me start correcting your stuff.

Wrong on the Bos Being Healthy, Savard didn't play much during that season but he was considered there number 1 C, they didn't miss a beat because they still had Bergeron and Krejci. Horton was their number 1 winger.

Canucks had enough depth? Wrong again Canucks only had 4 forwards with more than 0.5 Points in the 2011 playoffs. 0 goals from the 4th line. Canucks didn't have a player in their bottom 6 with more than 9 points. Look at Bos third line compare it to Canucks, then I think you will understand what depth is. There were a lot of injuries, fair enough, if there is depth they should be quality players coming into the lineup but there wasn't. Cup contending team they usually a some good quality depth player on entree level deals. Canucks had none

Not exactly correct on the Erhoff trade. Lukowich was part of the trade as well. Being able to pay Lukowich had nothing to do with cap since before the lockout NHL salary in the ahl didn't count against the cap. Yes Gillis was great at managing the cap but they pretty much just took Ohlund salary and gave it to Ehrhoff.

But my main 2 arguments are draft and Gillis didn't take the team over the top. I mainly focusing on player transactions, others Gillis arguments are mainly just W L records. It's like this a lot of people are discrediting Canucks win over the Blues because Benning didn't get Horvat and Markstrom. That is same as what I am doing right now to Gillis. One argument works for Benning and it doesn't work for Gillis. That doesn't make any sense.

The draft, if you compare non top 10 picks. Gillis will still lose on the draft argument. That part is not debatable.

2009 to 2013, that was the Canucks window. Gillis failed to get that impact Forward to put the Canucks over the top. You think Canucks were good enough in 2011 playoffs. What about 2009/2010/2012/2013. Did Gillis do enough to make the Canucks have the best shot at the cup? If yes Show me?

Burke vs Gillis, there going to have a different expectations because Canucks were at different stages when they took over the team.

Have a nice day.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

I know its been done to death, but flat out saying we had more depth ,but lost to injuries in 2011 is highly debatable imo..That same Bruins core was SC contending one for almost a decade after that...Ours petered out a year later.

Come on man. Most of their core was 25 and under. Ours were all around 30. Boston also went into a down period the same time we did, but were able to retool.

 

[I am toxic]

Burke had 3 NHL GM or/and president jobs after leaving Van

Gillis 0

Can it be because in the NHL world, they think a lot more highly of Burke than Gillis. Maybe and just maybe they think he is a better GM as well.

Have a great day

Appeal to auth . . . the old boys club.

I forgot about that one.

 

[I am toxic]

Anyone who thinks any team was as decimated as the Canucks by injury in the 2011 semi-finals or final is either completely unaware of facts or being deliberately disingenuous.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Gillis AINEC.

Love Pat but the debacle with Gretzky and then bringing in Messier makes him a clear #2.

 

[Joe Rogan]

Imagine if we had used a 2012 first rounder and Hodgson to get Carter on the Canucks. Instead we got an alcoholic 3rd line project and a fridge that sucked at hockey. I'd rather a GM go all in and fail (Toffoli) than wonder about what ifs ( the 2012 trade deadline)

 

[LordBacon]

Voted JB just for shits and giggles.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Come on man. Most of their core was 25 and under. Ours were all around 30. Boston also went into a down period the same time we did, but were able to retool.

Most of their core was younger..would'nt that have made them more resilient to injury..I agree ,age wasn't on our side

When Boston retooled around the same we did..they still had impact players in their prime..Bergeron,Marchand,Krecji, Rask, and players entering their prime (pastrnak)..We had nothing close to that

 

[Javaman]

If you're going to say someone is wrong, you need to make sure you get your facts right. Let me start correcting your stuff.

Wrong on the Bos Being Healthy, Savard didn't play much during that season but he was considered there number 1 C, they didn't miss a beat because they still had Bergeron and Krejci. Horton was their number 1 winger.

Canucks had enough depth? Wrong again Canucks only had 4 forwards with more than 0.5 Points in the 2011 playoffs. 0 goals from the 4th line. Canucks didn't have a player in their bottom 6 with more than 9 points. Look at Bos third line compare it to Canucks, then I think you will understand what depth is. There were a lot of injuries, fair enough, if there is depth they should be quality players coming into the lineup but there wasn't. Cup contending team they usually a some good quality depth player on entree level deals. Canucks had none

Not exactly correct on the Erhoff trade. Lukowich was part of the trade as well. Being able to pay Lukowich had nothing to do with cap since before the lockout NHL salary in the ahl didn't count against the cap. Yes Gillis was great at managing the cap but they pretty much just took Ohlund salary and gave it to Ehrhoff.

But my main 2 arguments are draft and Gillis didn't take the team over the top. I mainly focusing on player transactions, others Gillis arguments are mainly just W L records. It's like this a lot of people are discrediting Canucks win over the Blues because Benning didn't get Horvat and Markstrom. That is same as what I am doing right now to Gillis. One argument works for Benning and it doesn't work for Gillis. That doesn't make any sense.

The draft, if you compare non top 10 picks. Gillis will still lose on the draft argument. That part is not debatable.

2009 to 2013, that was the Canucks window. Gillis failed to get that impact Forward to put the Canucks over the top. You think Canucks were good enough in 2011 playoffs. What about 2009/2010/2012/2013. Did Gillis do enough to make the Canucks have the best shot at the cup? If yes Show me?

Burke vs Gillis, there going to have a different expectations because Canucks were at different stages when they took over the team.

Have a nice day.

Sigh.

I said the Bruins were healthy relative to the Canucks. Chiarelli and Lucic both publicly said pretty much the same thing after they won the Cup. Savard's concussion issues dated back to the prior season. In other words, Savard was the Bruin's #1 centre in the 2010/11 season in the same way Ferland has been a top 6 winger for the Canucks the past two seasons. His absence in their lineup was not some unforeseen situation that management had no time to address prior to the playoffs, in contrast to the injuries to Henrik, Kesler, and Malhotra.

When you line up the injuries to both teams by the time June rolled around, the Bruins were far better off than the Canucks. Seriously, I think Salo was the only one of the Canucks top 6 defensemen who was fully healthy at that point. Let that sink in for a moment.

I get the whole "good teams find a way to overcome injuries" thing, but there is a limit to how far you can take it. I mean, the Canucks would have been in far better situation if Rome had ruptured something in his abdomen rather than Hamhuis. The salary cap itself places a limit on how much quality depth any one team can have on its roster. If there were no correlation between the quantity of injuries and the quality of injured players, then every NHLer would make the same salary.

San Jose wanted to dump the salaries of Erhoff and Lukowich to acquire some other expensive player. Can't remember who* but the fact remains that Gillis had managed the cap in such a way that the Canucks could acquire both in exchange for a couple of dead-end prospects in White and Rahimi.

A healthy Canucks team was utterly dominant in 2010/11 in no small part due to how Benning managed contracts against the cap. Honestly, my feeling after the first two games against Boston was that the Bruins simply couldn't skate with the Canucks. It wouldn't have surprised me to see the Canucks take that series in 4 or 5 games if they'd been as healthy as the Bruins.

Benning shouldn't even be part of this conversation, frankly. I can't understand why you'd even mention him this early in the polling.

*Edit: Dany Heatley, I believe it was.

 

[Britton]

It's in response to his claim that the core Gillis inherited were made who they were by his favorite GM.

This is an absolutely ridiculous comparison and you know it. Horvat and Markstrom became exactly what they were supposed to be. The moment Horvat was drafted he was immediately compared to Ryan O'Reilly which is pretty much the exact player he's become. Markstrom was always considered a top goalie prospect. You can't tell me that anyone in their right mind would have predicted Kesler could become a 40 goal 70 point player or that Alex Burrows would explode into a top tier player like he did after the 07-08 season. Do you really think it was just a fluke they did what they did and had nothing to do with the fact that Gillis completely changed the style of play in Vancouver. Do you think Henrik Sedin wins the Hart if they don't take advantage of the fact that very few teams knew how to take advantage of deployment like the Canucks did?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

This is an absolutely ridiculous comparison and you know it. Horvat and Markstrom became exactly what they were supposed to be. The moment Horvat was drafted he was immediately compared to Ryan O'Reilly which is pretty much the exact player he's become. Markstrom was always considered a top goalie prospect. You can't tell me that anyone in their right mind would have predicted Kesler could become a 40 goal 70 point player or that Alex Burrows would explode into a top tier player like he did after the 07-08 season. Do you really think it was just a fluke they did what they did and had nothing to do with the fact that Gillis completely changed the style of play in Vancouver. Do you think Henrik Sedin wins the Hart if they don't take advantage of the fact that very few teams knew how to take advantage of deployment like the Canucks did?

What a selective memory you have.?...Markstrom was a top goalie prospect until he wasn't...He was a busting goalie who cleared waivers in 2015..Fortunately, he reinvented his game, and became the player we all hoped he would be..years later.

 

[4Twenty]

Most of their core was younger..would'nt that have made them more resilient to injury..I agree ,age wasn't on our side

When Boston retooled around the same we did..they still had impact players in their prime..Bergeron,Marchand,Krecji, Rask, and players entering their prime (pastrnak)..We had nothing close to that

Henrik and Daniel Sedin both performed to similar levels to Kreijci after Benning arrived. Benning traded the Canucks version of Bergeron. Didn’t have a Rask but had young possibilities in the system. Didn’t have a Marchand but had an Edler-Tanev top pair in their primes.

And a player who would become the team captain.

These were all strong pieces at the time.


They inherited a team that was the 2nd best in the nhl over 5 years that had a terrible bad half season under a toxic coach. Gillis’ worst season they were top 10 in the league up until the players wore down around New Years.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Henrik and Daniel Sedin both performed to similar levels to Kreijci after Benning arrived. Benning traded the Canucks version of Bergeron. Didn’t have a Rask but had young possibilities in the system. Didn’t have a Marchand but had an Edler-Tanev top pair in their primes.

And a player who would become the team captain.

These were all strong pieces at the time.


They inherited a team that was the 2nd best in the nhl over 5 years that had a terrible bad half season under a toxic coach. Gillis’ worst season they were top 10 in the league up until the players wore down around New Years.

Who is this Canucks Bergeron?..Kesler?
Young possibilities.?.Every team has young possibilities..Goaltending was a position of strength for the team two years prior.
Edler was 28..Tanev was the only impact player on the team in his prime years.

Compared to..Bergeron 29, Lucic 26,Marchand 26, Hamilton 21, Krejci 28, Pastrnak 18, Tukka Rask 27

 

[4Twenty]

Who is this Canucks Bergeron?
Young possibilities.?.Every team has young possibilities..Goaltending was a position of strength for the team two years prior.
Edler was 28..Tanev was the only impact player on the team in his prime years.

Compared to..Bergeron 29, Lucic 26,Marchand 26, Hamilton 21, Krejci 28, Pastrnak 18, Tukka Rask 27

Kesler was the Bergeron. Benning traded him. Don’t blame Gillis the return was squandered.

Horvat was 19. Markstrom 24. Edler right around the same age as Boston’s older players.

Vancouver also had a strong group of valuable veterans who provided quality play and trade value.

Benning’s moves tanked the team. Thankfully or else we wouldn’t have Hughes or Pettersson or Juolevi.


Goaltending hasn’t been an issue and wasn’t one when he got here. Wasted $18m to get outdone by Backups. Markstrom should’ve got the net sooner that much is obvious.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Kesler was the Bergeron. Benning traded him. Don’t blame Gillis the return was squandered.

Horvat was 19. Markstrom 24. Edler right around the same age as Boston’s older players.

Vancouver also had a strong group of valuable veterans who provided quality play and trade value.

Benning’s moves tanked the team. Thankfully or else we wouldn’t have Hughes or Pettersson or Juolevi.

As Brian Burke says..any time you have a disgruntled star..you're going to lose that trade..especially when it comes down to only 2 teams.

Horvat was too young to really pull on the rope...Marky was busting, and was literally years away.

Torts tanked a lot of the players on the team...and no..we didnt have anywhere near the assets that the 2014-15 Bruins had..



Wait..I'm stopping... you've dragged me into another Benning debate in the wrong thread, twice in one day...

 

[kaiser matias]

I can't believe no one has talked about Harry Neale. I would have him #4 behind Quinn1/Gillis2/Burke (as much as I don't like his public persona I don't know him)3.

For the simplistic, he took the team to a cup final, literally coaching it to the cup final after Roger was suspended - you know, the assistant coach that Neale promoted to head coach.

As and aside, if you don't know about Roger Neilson, you should go skool yourself. We'll discuss him when @Mr. Canucklehead gets off his butt and starts the Canucks Greatest Coach thread, after lolling around wallowing in the success of our current 4 game winning streak.

You've got this all backwards. Neale was the one suspended for helping Tiger fight fans in Quebec, and his absence let Neilson take over as coach, and stay there through to the final. Neale wasn't even GM that year, it was still Jake Milford. Neale was going to take over though that summer, as Milford was retiring, and he would let Neilson keep on as coach.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Mike Gillis claims top spot; number two is up.

Closed.