Whose downfall was the biggest: Sutter or Gillis?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

Hodgson for Kassian as a good trade right?

because Hodgson is so garbage defensively they finally moved him off center because he couldn't be trusted

Kassian has 26 even strength points playing just under 13 minutes per game

Hodgson has 24 points even strength points playing 18 minutes per game

that trade is looking better for the Canucks every day

First off.. enjoy the cherry picked stats - power play points do count.. and Vancouver has scored about 40 more even strength than Buffalo.

But even if Kassian ends up being the better player... it was a dumb trade.

The Canucks were trying to win the Cup while their window was open. Trading their best young asset for a guy who wasn't going to contribute for 3 years is dumb when you're trying to win now.

[automaton 3]

Hodgson has 5 fewer points this year (43) than Kassian has in his entire career (48).

It was a bad trade then, and has not improved.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

First off.. enjoy the cherry picked stats - power play points do count.. and Vancouver has scored about 40 more even strength than Buffalo.

But even if Kassian ends up being the better player... it was a dumb trade.

The Canucks were trying to win the Cup while their window was open. Trading their best young asset for a guy who wasn't going to contribute for 3 years is dumb when you're trying to win now.

Kassian doesn't play on the power play

Kassian hasn't played on a top 6 role more than a handful of games this year (his most common linemates are Richardson and Booth)

Hodgson was with Vanek to start the year and has played top 6 in Buffalo most of the year

Don't know how it's cherry picking when trying to find the most common statistic they have

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

Kassian doesn't play on the power play

Kassian hasn't played on a top 6 role more than a handful of games this year

Hodgson was with Vanek to start the year and has played top 6 in Buffalo all year

Perhaps Kassian should be better so they play him in the top 6 and on the PP instead of guys they call up from the AHL

[d_phaneuf]

and again

Hodgson is so bad defensively that on the worst team in the league he was deemed too big of a liability at center ice

so whether you can argue they should have made a different trade with that asset I can understand, but Hodgson as he is currently is never going to be a top 9 center on a team competing for the Stanley Cup

those teams don't have liabilities like him in their own end playing big minutes

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

and again

Hodgson is so bad defensively that on the worst team in the league he was deemed too big of a liability at center ice

so whether you can argue they should have made a different trade with that asset I can understand, but Hodgson as he is currently is never going to be a top 9 center on a team competing for the Stanley Cup

those teams don't have liabilities like him in their own end playing big minutes

And again... the goal of the NHL to win the Stanley Cup, not to trade your best asset for a project player while you're in the middle of your 2-3 year window.

[Erick Estrada]

The Hodgson trade was a bad one end of story. Canucks fans ripping on his defensive play is no different than Flames fans ripping on Phaneuf to justify the trade. Doesn't change the fact that if you break down either trade based on value received for top assets they are both poor deals made by Gillis and Sutter.

[Vinny01]

The Keith Ballard trade was one of Gillis worst. He be up Grabner and a 1st for a $4.25M 6/7 D that had to be bought out

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

The Keith Ballard trade was one of Gillis worst. He be up Grabner and a 1st for a $4.25M 6/7 D that had to be bought out

Yeah that was horrible. For me, that was a momentum changer for the organization

Well, that and Sedin taking multiple shots to the face and no one doing anything about it

[Buff]

Sutter took a patient on life support, brought it back to life and gave it hope. Unfortunately, the patient wasn't meant to live under his watch.

Gillis took over a new, healthy patient, and let it die. Gillis is a quack.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by FAN

Has there ever been a GM who inherited a Stanley Cup contender? I never understood why anyone thought Gillis inherited a Cup contender. He inherited a team that missed the playoffs.

Ultimately, Gillis lacked vision. He thought he was adjusting to what it took to win in the NHL but what he was really doing was getting away from what made the team successful.

Stan Bowman was pretty much gifted a ring by Dale Tallon. Tallon made a huge mistake with Versteeg and Barker and should have been fired, but that team was his.

Gillis trading away two starting goaltenders, with one entering the prime of his career and one an all-world 2-time Olympic gold medalist, for nothing but a magic bean in Horvat trumps the Phaneuf deal 10 times over. Just so bad.

[Flame On]

In questions regarding the Vancouver franchise and the Flames franchise, use this helpful template:
Which _______ is worse?
Calgary or Vancouver.
Answer Vancouver.
Nuff said.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Honestly in the past 20 years, Darryl is the one guy that brought back respectability to the organization. Does anyone actually remember the 2002-03 season? What was it, 6/7 years of playoffs with Darryl? Zero under Coates, zero under Button, zero under Feaster... we'll see about the next guy.

The dramatically improved financial position of the Canadian NHL teams, including a CDN dollar a par and the salary cap, brought respectability back to this franchise. Sutter's tenure coincided with that upswing.

As for giving Sutter credit for rebuilding the scouting system, does anyone believe it didn't occur to his predecessors that it would help to have more scouts, or for the Flames to have their own farm team? Of course they wanted that stuff. But the team couldn't pay for it until the financial landscape of the small-market Canadian teams became solid. During his tenure, Sutter had one of the worst drafting and development records in the NHL. He left his successor with a capped-out team that had less under-26 talent in the system than almost any other franchise in the league.

Sutter has a lot more than a couple bad trades in his debit column. He has six seasons of short-term thinking, a poor draft history, a succession of bad coaching choices, and terrible cap management in the scales as well. There's a reason there's been no hint of another franchise interested in Darryl Sutter as a GM. He's walking proof of the Peter Principle.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by moon

This has been discussed to death here but that goes against every single thing Feaster has ever said. He always said he was against the rebuild and he thought the team was competitive.

If you honestly believe professional sports management speak the truth to the media, you've got to be one of the most naive sports fans in the country. Everything said for public consumption is spin. The real decisions and strategies hammered out behind closed doors are rarely ever made public.

[Jason14h]

The dramatically improved financial position of the Canadian NHL teams, including a CDN dollar a par and the salary cap, brought respectability back to this franchise. Sutter's tenure coincided with that upswing.

Or maybe trading for Kipper who turned in the great NHL season ever for the games he played that year helped......

[moon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If you honestly believe professional sports management speak the truth to the media, you've got to be one of the most naive sports fans in the country. Everything said for public consumption is spin. The real decisions and strategies hammered out behind closed doors are rarely ever made public.

I think that someone isn't going to be so vocal about how "they aren't the guy for a rebuild", they believe the team can compete, that he misjudged the team etc. if he truly didn't believe in that course of action.

Also, Feaster had no issue coming out and saying ownership meddled in TB.

[moon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Sutter has a lot more than a couple bad trades in his debit column. He has six seasons of short-term thinking, a poor draft history, a succession of bad coaching choices, and terrible cap management in the scales as well. There's a reason there's been no hint of another franchise interested in Darryl Sutter as a GM. He's walking proof of the Peter Principle.

Or because he is currently employed as a coach with no signs that he is leaving that position.

By far the 2nd best GM (maybe first but not worth getting into it with the old foggies on the board) this franchise has had. A great GM and there are plenty of teams out there that would have a big upgrade if they did look to add him as GM.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Everyone likes to pretend that Sutter was an excellent GM. The truth is, he got lucky on trading for Kiprusoff for a second and basically rode the success of that move his entire tenure. He had made a handful of questionable trades prior to the Phaneuf, Jokinen debacles.

- Ference + Kobasew for Stuart + Primeau
- Reinprect + Sauve for Mike Leclerc + B. Boucher
- C. Clark + 7th for 6th + 7th



His trading was never overly impressive minus the Kiprusoff deal. His drafting was generally suspect but and he didnt survive as GM long enough to see some of his picks real start to pan out (brodie, backlund). That being said he did not get very good value out of his high picks and/or he traded the pick away before the draft.

His greatest strength as GM was signing (seemingly) good deals. However, he accomplished this by handing every vet under the sun a NTC/NMC.

He also seemed enamoured with signing old veteran nhlers. Some worked (Nolan) others didnt (Hulse, Marchment, Friesen), and some were just ok (Amonte, Bertuzzi).

I really think Sutter gets too much credit as a gm who was excellent and then slowly lost his mind, when in reality, he was never very good, just got lucky with a peaking team at the right time and then slowly let the whole thing collapse.

[moon]

If the Kipper deal is just him being lucky why not dismiss the Phaneuf deal as unlucky?

[Fire]

People calling Darryl Sutter a great GM? Wow...