The Top 10 Blunders Of the Mike Gillis Era

Dimitri Filipovic
October 12 2012 08:57AM

Recently, I sang the praises of General Manager Mike Gillis, breaking down the top 10 moves of his tenure with the Canucks. It hasn't been all roses, though. As could be expected, there have been a handful of moves along the way that haven't exactly panned out the way he would have hoped.

What you'll quickly notice is that this list provides us with some perspective on how good of a job he has done in the past five years. For the sake of completeness, the list includes 10 blunders. Just know that if the first couple of them are being singled out as mistakes, then that means he has probably done his job effectively.

Click Past the Jump to Read More.

10) Not Drafting Enough WHL Talent

.. Kidding. Although some people in the media will continue to perpetuate the silly notion that the Canucks should be taking players from the WHL, mostly because because it's convenient. Although to be fair, it would make going to Giants games during this lockout more interesting if prospects in the Canucks organization were coming to town.

The actual 10th worst blunder was trading away Mike Brown for Nathan McIver in February of 2008. McIver - originally a draft pick of the Canucks - wound up providing defensive depth for the Manitoba Moose. Brown on the other hand, has found a home as a gritty 4th line winger on the Toronto Maple Leafs. Say what you will about Brown's ability, but as a General Manager, you don't want to be in the business of trading away legitimate NHL players for guys that aren't. In case you weren't convinced, I'll let Mike Brown's handlebar moustache do the talking.

9) Trading Away Shane O'Brien for Ryan Parent

.. was a mistake for essentially the same reason as the one I mentioned above. All that I'll say about Parent is that Jeff Angus wrote an article about him back in May, that was titled "Why were the warning signs ignored?"

The only reason why this trade isn't higher up on the list is because of the fact that Shane O'Brien wasn't going to work out in Vancouver. He had worn out his welcome, and he was out the door regardless. Since then, he has gone on to be a productive 3rd pairing defenseman for Nashville, and a 2nd pairing defenseman for Colorado, while providing - wait for it, wait for it - leadership. Who knew?

The big loser from this trade aren't the Vancouver Canucks, though, but rather Vancouver's nightlife. I'm assuming Mike Gillis wasn't being all that considerate of the feelings of late-night pizza shop owners when he pulled the trigger.

8) Signing Marco Sturm

.. who surprised even me with just how old, and decrepit he looked on his surgically repaired knees. I was down on the signing from the minute it was announced, and found it rather laughable when people remarked about how he would provide the team with secondary scoring. So the fact that I was taken aback by his play is saying something.

Thankfully, it was only a one-year contract, and Gillis was able to unload him onto Vancouver's farm team. And hey, it worked out - the Canucks got David Booth, and Marco Sturm was allowed to ride off into the sunset.

7) Trading Away Sergei Shirokov for Mike Duco

.. which will ultimately wind up being remembered for Pass it to Bulis catching Duco red-handed. It was fun while it lasted, but the Canucks chose not to qualify him this summer, shutting the door on the Mike Duco era.

It's hard not to wonder what Shirokov could have done for the Canucks, as you watch him light up the KHL. He was an dynamic sniper who potted 44 goals in two seasons with the Moose, yet never wound up getting a legitimate shot with the Canucks. Adding insult to injury is the fact that the biggest current need for the Canucks is a scoring right winger to slot in on the second line. 

6) Letting Mike Weaver Go

.. for absolutely nothing in return. This happened really early in Gillis' tenure, but Weaver, who suited up for 55 games with the Canucks in 2007-08, wound up signing with the St. Louis Blues the following summer for a measly $700,000. In the past two seasons, he has found a home with the Florida Panthers. Which begs the question - why don't the Canucks call him up?

In 2010, he was paired with Jason Garrison to form one of the best defensive pairings in the entire NHL. In fact, James Mirtle composed a list of the top defensive defenseman in the entire NHL, with Mike Weaver coming in at number 3 (right behind two current Canucks).

Chances are that if you ask the casual fan who Mike Weaver is, they won't be able to tell you. Which is a shame because all he does is help keep the puck out of his team's net - a useful trait for a defenseman, so I hear.

5) Swinging and Missing (Repeatedly) This Summer

 

.. on big names like Shea Weber, Shane Doan, and Justin Schultz.

It's not really fair to place the blame on Gillis for this, given the fact that Weber and Doan weren't really available to be had, despite what you may have heard. As for Schultz, even Stevie Wonder could see that choosing Edmonton was the best career path for him - the opportunity thanks to the dearth of defensemen in the system and the youth already on the team - were simply too enticing to pass up.

Nonetheless, Gillis went to bat on all three guys, and whiffed. And that has to be taken into account.

4) Offering Mats Sundin $20 Million over 2 Years

.. proved that sometimes you have to be lucky, to be good. If Sundin had accepted this offer, the second year of the contract would have affected Gillis' ability lock the Sedins up to long-term extensions the following summer. It could have led to a catastrophic domino effect for the Vancouver Canucks organization.

Now maybe Gillis was just sending Sundin a message, you know, making sure he had his attention. Perhaps Gillis knew that Sundin wasn't really going to sign a two year deal. That would make the second year of the contract more defensible, but either way: Gillis was bluffing with the future of the Sedins in Vancouver. It was a bad bet.

Thankfully, Sundin did the Canucks a monumentally large favour by choosing to sign to a pro-rated deal for one season, ultimately making the move the 5th best transaction of the Gillis era.

3) Choosing Mason Raymond over Michael Grabner

There are only so many undersized, speedy, skill wingers you can have slotted in on a secondary scoring line. For the Canucks, they had a choice to make in the summer of 2010: Mason Raymond or Michael Grabner? At the time, Raymond was coming off of a season where he scored 25 goals, largely thanks to Ryan Kesler, newfound power play production, and a spike in shooting percentage. They chose Raymond, hoping that he could build off of his strong campaign. Unfortunately, what they wound up receiving were one season in which Raymond looked like a competent third liner, and a second remarkably poor season this past year. It has been such a steep fall from grace for Raymond, that he doesn't even have a defined role on the team as of now.

As for Grabner, he went on to submit an electrifying year in his first season on the Island, scoring 34 goals. He took a step back last year, but 20 goals is hardly anything to scoff at and based on his scoring rate he's a legitimate top-line winger. It's fair to say that he's has been making the most of what he has been given. He has been in the top-sixty in goals/60 minutes, while killing penalties and starting only 43% of his shifts in the offensive zone.

But hey, at least Mason Raymond falls down with the best of 'em! 

2) Letting Willie Mitchell Go

.. which in retrospect turned out to be a terrible decision. Yet at the time, I don't recall too many people criticizing the Canucks for moving on from the oft-injured Mitchell, in an attempt to transition towards a more explosive and quicker defensive group. There are so many things that we don't know when it comes to hockey, but what we did know was that Ballard had averaged 11 more games played per season from 2005-10. Scripting what wound up transpiring over the following two seasons would get you kicked out of a Hollywood pitch meeting.

As we are constantly reminded though, hindsight is 20/20. Willie Mitchell is coming off of a season where he played an integral role for the Stanley Cup champions. Meanwhile the Canucks are saddled with a dreadful contract (more on this below). It's a shame that Mitchell found his fairytale ending somewhere else - at the expense of the Canucks, no less - but you couldn't help being thrilled for the B.C. boy as he raised the cup this past June.

1) Trading for Keith Ballard

.. which has been an unmitigated disaster since the very beginning. 

Thanks to the offseason surgery he was recovering from in his first summer as a Canuck, he struggled during the preseason. Just four games into the year, he suffered a concussion. The entire run has been a comedy of errors. The result has been two seasons in which Ballard has failed to top 7 points, while logging under 16 minutes. Not exactly the type of production you'd like to see from a player with a $4.2 million cap hit.

I'm not quite sure what to point at as the sole reason for Ballard's undoing with the Canucks. It's either his inability to play the right side, or the fact that he kicked Alain Vigneault's dog. I still think that there's a redemption chapter to be written in the story of Keith Ballard's career - whether it happens with the Canucks, or with some other team is the question.

Honourable Mentions:

Why stop, when we're having so much fun reminiscing about moves that didn't work out? Misery loves company. Below are a few moves from the past ten years that seemed harmless at the time, only to come back to haunt the Canucks. You'll note that all three of these trades were before Mike Gillis took over, and that's why they weren't included in the list above.

August 2003: Canucks acquire Johan Hedberg for a 2004 2nd Rounder

.. which the Pittsburgh Penguins used to take defenseman Alex Goligoski (who wound up being traded for James Neal, of the 40-goal club). This trade hurts because it has deprived me of the ability to root for Goligoski as a Canuck. He's a puck-moving defenseman (take a drink), who has a name that is really fun to say, and sports one of the wildest haircuts this side of Ryan Getzlaf.

Hedberg wound up starting 17 games for the Canucks in the 2003-04 season, while forming the holy trinity of goaltending with Dan Cloutier and Alex Auld. After you finish reading this post, go ahead and hug a picture of Luongo and Schneider.

March 2004: Canucks acquire Martin Rucinsky for R.J. Umberger

.. which hurts, because Ryan Kesler and Umberger could have made sweet music together on the 2nd line (though they reportedly dislike each other). Umberger, who was selected 16th overall by the Canucks, sat out the entire 2003-04 season because he couldn't reach an agreement with the team. He has gone on to be good for 20-25 goals, and strong play in a secondary role; albeit on some terrible Columbus Blue Jackets teams.

As for Rucinsky, he wound up playing in 13 games for the Canucks. He scored one goal, but I'm sure it was glorious.

February 2007: Canucks acquire Brent Sopel for a 2007 2nd Rounder

.. which the Los Angeles Kings used to select Wayne Simmonds. The level of hurt was taken to a whole new level this past season, when Simmonds flourished in Philadelphia to the tune of 28 goals. Add in what he brings to the table in terms of his physical game, and he's not a bad guy to have on your team.

Sopel played in 20 games for the Canucks that year, before moving on to Chicago. He now has his Stanley Cup ring, and we have the memories of his exceptionally greasy hair. Sometimes life isn't fair.

7482b25b962fb1661ea9028fb4e0db36
Dimitri Filipovic writes about hockey on the internet, and is the Managing Editor of Canucks Army. You can follow him on Twitter @DimFilipovic, and email him at dimitri.filipovic@gmail.com.
Avatar
#2 b
October 12 2012, 09:10AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I wonder if we kept Mitchell, if we still would've gotten Hamhuis... or maybe we just wouldnt've gotten Ballard instead. *sigh

Avatar
#3 dan
October 12 2012, 09:18AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Trading Mitchell is not hindsight. The fact that there was so media criticism shows how ill informed Vancouver media is... A shutdown D who can play against opposing top players as always! been a valuable commodity in the league. Mitchell's Q of C was strong AND He's a great penalty killer. And, at a reasonable price>

Why then did GMMG make this ridiculous 'hockey' move.Because of the well-documented conflict between Av and Willie.Also, AV also wouldn't play Grabner And had a conflict with Hodgson.

All three gone And all three mistakes...

It follows then that the biggest blunder you failed to mention is resigning AV. A coach who also openly admits he didn't have a plan B for Sedin injury?something a 'rookie' coach would do...And refuses to talk to fans after weeks after this year's playoff loss?Clearly not actions of a 'leader' of men.

Again given a free pass...

Yet ~98% support in media for Av? Vancouver media are like teen age girls..they become infatuated with a player or coach and will defend him now matter how irrational the position is.

Avatar
#4 Jeff Angus
October 12 2012, 09:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

No.

Mitchell wasn't re-signed because he was still struggling with post-concussion symptoms and it wasn't a guarantee he would ever play again.

There was no "rift" between him and AV. They had one little media spat and I guess that carried over.

Avatar
#5 Thomas Drance
October 12 2012, 11:16AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Mitchell for 3 years, 3.5 million was a very high-risk deal for Lombardi considering Mitchell was still dealing with Post-Concussion Syndrome at the time he signed a deal. He also hadn't appeared in more than 70 games in 8 years prior to this past season when he played in 90+. High-risk, high-reward.

Second guessing the decision to allow Mitchell to walk (while bringing in two reliably durable left-side defenseman in Ballard/Hamhuis that summer) is actually unhinged. The thought processes there are totally defensible, the result just didn't go Vancouver's way.

Avatar
#6 Jordan_Clarke
October 12 2012, 11:21AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Great list. I didn't think letting Mitchell go was a mistake at the time. There were a lot of question marks, and he appeared slow at times. I think he's the kind of player that just fits Darryl Sutter's system like a glove, so it's looking like a mistake now. And if keeping Mitchell meant missing out on Hamhuis, I'm glad we let Willie go.

It may not be a player transaction, but giving Roberto Luongo the C was one of the biggest blunders of the Gillis era. It was an unnecessarily weird move, and didn't really benefit anyone involved.

Avatar
#7 Jesse
October 12 2012, 12:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Willie Mitchell was a high risk high reward player at that point, there's a reason why there had been a lot of interest in him, but only LA was willing to pony up that extra year. They had the capspace to absorb the hit had Mitchell not worked out, but the Canucks didn't.

Another thing, is that had Mitchell signed here, Hamhuis probably would've gone somewhere else, and Bieksa might not have had that career turnaround without him. What's currently a very good top pairing of Hamhuis-Bieksa could've ended up being Ballard-Mitchell if things had gone differently.

Avatar
#8 Cam Charron
October 12 2012, 12:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

In reference to #5 on the list...

What, no Jagr?

Avatar
#9 da
October 12 2012, 01:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Cam Charron

How is the whole steve bernier debacle not on this list

Avatar
#10 Pinch
October 12 2012, 03:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

20 games worth of glorious greasy sopel hair is worth any price.

Avatar
#11 Mantastic
October 12 2012, 03:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

how is luongo's contract not on there?

Avatar
#13 Mantastic
October 12 2012, 05:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Dimitri Filipovic

if it was good, people wouldn't mind trading for him for Gillis's asking price. signing any goaltender beyond 6 years is ludicrous to begin with let alone 12 and yes i know he won't be playing for all 12.

Avatar
#14 Mitch
October 12 2012, 07:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I'm a little surprised there's no mention of his involvement with Tom Larscheid's retirement. I don't imagine it was ever officially confirmed, but one thing that got me down about the '11 run was that Tommy wasn't a part of it. If anyone deserved to call that, it was him.

Avatar
#15 Errant Pedant
October 12 2012, 10:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

>Which begs the question - why don't the Canucks call him up?

It raises the question. Raises. You only beg the question when you use circular logic, by presupposing your conclusion as a premise in an argument.

For example:

Neither the League nor the PA have budged much from their initial positions, which raises the question: who will blink first?

vs

1: God must exist. 2: How do you know? 1: Because the Bible says so. 2: Why should I believe the Bible? 1: Because the Bible was written by God.

Avatar
#16 WinterIsComing
October 13 2012, 12:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Grabner/Raymond should have been no. 1 imo. Ill still randomly think about it sometimes. I was fine with Willie leaving, lot of questions about his health at the time. Ballard I still believe will have a come back year.

Avatar
#17 dan
October 13 2012, 08:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Jeff Angus

Nope..yr just parroting the 'Nuck management company line?..(to be expected)

Try logic...why would LA give WM a contract (2 yr. I believe) if he was still suffering PCS...

also there is Grabner and Hodgson and yes Mitchell all singled out by AV..

time to dig deeper ? yr drop the bias.?.

Avatar
#18 dan
October 13 2012, 08:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Thomas Drance

Not second ingTD...said it at the time..

Yr on full spin cycle ... But its to be expected from a guy that still believes Ballard is better than WM..?? And Hamhuis was a great pick up but nothing to do with WM & Ballard? 3.5$ for WM 4.6 for KB? Your just reaching...

"The thought processes there are totally defensible" exactly..your starting from a biased position...(to defend the Nucks..)

But..from an 'objective' viewpoint.signing WM to a two year deal was worth the risk.. 1st concussion (I believe)..(shutdown D who play against top players..great on pk..a big body)a great team guy.. a local guy..playoff experience..for 3.5 M Great value! yr blog is correctly named...:)

Avatar
#19 dan
October 13 2012, 09:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Dimitri Filipovic

Really....then why hasn't he been moved yet? logic checked at the door?

Avatar
#20 dan
October 13 2012, 09:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Thomas Drance

1. The Sharks & Caps were also after WM. 2. By simply matching the Kings offer we could have had WM and Hammy. 3. A Gm's key job is to try and 'predict' the future. whether it be in drafting or trading.. 4. A key point your choosing to overlook is that GMMG clearly overvalued KB and undervalued WM. This had more to do with not resigning WM then his injury. MG was obsessed/convinced that the Mitchell type of D -man was obsolete..this huge misjudgment is his biggest error and most likely cost the team the cup..! GMMG showed his inexperience by not recognizing this.And, Mitchell's ability to log big tough minutes.. Ironic that Hammy and Ballard and CE and AE all have had injury issues..and WM has not? hmmm...

Comments are closed for this article.