They WERE part of the core - plain and simple.

Yzerman's only been on the job for 3 years as opposed to Gillis' 5...so his turnover is likely to be lower. But when he took over TB was coming off 3 poor years in a row, their farm was terrible and they were trotting out Nittymaki as their goalie. This year was surprisingly bad, but they're definitely on the right path.

Maybe Vancouver wasn't a top contender, but they were coming off an 88 points season as opposed to TB's 80. The Canucks had also had 3 out of 4 seasons with over 100 points prior to that. They weren't in any way a rebuilding team when Gillis took over.
- djamon

You have no idea what you are talking about.

In 2008, Edler was #6/7 d-man

Bieksa only played 34 games. Kesler/Burrows finally secured spots fulltime on the team as 3rd liners........not what you call the core.

The team that did so well prior top Gillis taking over do not resemble the current team whatsoever outside of Luongo and the twins holding the same roles.......

To who? He's just as valuable to the Canucks as he's always been!
- LeftCoaster

To the league. It was in the context of his trade value.

Hamhuis was an excellent addition. Garrison? Not so much. Terrible signing. Garrison should send Brian Campbell a Chriistmas card for helping him get that contract.
- djamon

Holy (frank), I was into having an intellegent conversation with you until that??? Did you watch the last half of the year? Garrison was our best dman! At the beginning I was questioning the move, but like all new players, he took some time to fit it. Once he did, he was absolutely more than great for the team.

I watched most of them. he was much better late in the year, but it took him a while to get there. And I thought he was always awful in his own zone.

I stand by it...it was a terrible signing. They didn't need any more 4.5m defensemen.
- djamon

He was bad the first two weeks of the season, but after that he was an absolute rock in the D-zone, all while scoring at a clip that would have put him over 15 goals in an 82 game season.

Probably would have gotten more had he been given the PP time he deserved early on.

To the league. It was in the context of his trade value.
- djamon

Why do the Canucks care about how the league values him? He plays for the Canucks, and, is a valuable contributor to the team. He'll not be moved!

Booth is a non contributor...so far.
Ballard is a non contributor...coaching.
Luongo is a non contributor...management.
Edler is a non contributor sometimes...inconsistent.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

In 2008, Edler was #6/7 d-man

Bieksa only played 34 games. Kesler/Burrows finally secured spots fulltime on the team as 3rd liners........not what you call the core.

The team that did so well prior top Gillis taking over do not resemble the current team whatsoever outside of Luongo and the twins holding the same roles.......
- chompsey

You can't be this obtuse. Did you even watch the Canucks back then? Are you 12?

Bieksa was hurt that year, but he played 81 games the year before and he played over 23 minutes/game THAT year. He was 26 and part of the core. Period. Same with Edler. A 21 year old getting 21 minutes/game is part of the core! The core isn't always who your best players are right now, they're also the players you're going forward with. Figure it out.

And to say the team has changed in 5 years is idiotic...who cares? Every team has.

The core didn't contain two 20+ min/game defensemen? Or their #2 C? That's ridiculous. Their core was Sedin/Sedin/Kesler/Burrows/Bieksa/Edler/Ohlund/Luongo. They were transitioning Naslund and Morrison out already at this point.

Their core today is virtually identical...and has been for pretty much all of Gillis' tenure. He made some nice additions to help get them to the Finals, but due to his own mistakes he's got his hands full fixing things this summer.
- djamon

Alex Edler was a young 21 year old dman coming off his first full season in the league, hardly a core player! He is now though.

They WERE part of the core - plain and simple.

Yzerman's only been on the job for 3 years as opposed to Gillis' 5...so his turnover is likely to be lower. But when he took over TB was coming off 3 poor years in a row, their farm was terrible and they were trotting out Nittymaki as their goalie. This year was surprisingly bad, but they're definitely on the right path.

Maybe Vancouver wasn't a top contender, but they were coming off an 88 points season as opposed to TB's 80. The Canucks had also had 3 out of 4 seasons with over 100 points prior to that. They weren't in any way a rebuilding team when Gillis took over.
- djamon

Gillis entered at the changing of the guard. He was hired in the off season after Naslund, Morrision, Linden all finished their Canuck careers. At the time the Sedins were still 2nd line players, playing with the likes of Taylor Pyatt, Kesler was the 3rd line C, Burrows a 3rd line winger and super pest, Bieksa played less than 40 games that year. Luongo played 73 games, won 47, was nominated for the Hart and Vezina and Vigneault won the Jack Adams, based on Luongo's year alone.

I'm not even going to compare to TB, because why would I, but you clearly don't know what you are talking about in regards to the Canucks.

Gillis entered at the changing of the guard. He was hired in the off season after Naslund, Morrision, Linden all finished their Canuck careers. At the time the Sedins were still 2nd line players, playing with the likes of Taylor Pyatt, Kesler was the 3rd line C, Burrows a 3rd line winger and super pest, Bieksa played less than 40 games that year. Luongo played 73 games, won 47, was nominated for the Hart and Vezina and Vigneault won the Jack Adams, based on Luongo's year alone.

I'm not even going to compare to TB, because why would I, but you clearly don't know what you are talking about in regards to the Canucks.
- 1970vintage

I totally forgot about that.

Holy (frank), I was into having an intellegent conversation with you until that??? Did you watch the last half of the year? Garrison was our best dman! At the beginning I was questioning the move, but like all new players, he took some time to fit it. Once he did, he was absolutely more than great for the team.
- LeftCoaster

Wow...I didn't realize this was such a sore point...lol. I just disagree is all. My evaluation is always based on his contract...and I thought his contract was way high for one good year. I know he's a local kid so I'll lay off him.

You can't be this obtuse. Did you even watch the Canucks back then? Are you 12?

Bieksa was hurt that year, but he played 81 games the year before and he played over 23 minutes/game THAT year. He was 26 and part of the core. Period. Same with Edler. A 21 year old getting 21 minutes/game is part of the core! The core isn't always who your best players are right now, they're also the players you're going forward with. Figure it out.

And to say the team has changed in 5 years is idiotic...who cares? Every team has.
- djamon

Seriously man? Bieksa was injured yes, and uncertain if he'd be able to come back because of the severity of his injury. I will concede that he was more of a core than the rest. But, the rest were not.

Youre the one who said that Gillis had the exact same core as when he took over. I am countering the opposite. Of course teams change, thats not my argument. My argument is that the core is different and it is.

Just because they're part of the core now doesn't mean they were then.....

Gillis entered at the changing of the guard. He was hired in the off season after Naslund, Morrision, Linden all finished their Canuck careers. At the time the Sedins were still 2nd line players, playing with the likes of Taylor Pyatt, Kesler was the 3rd line C, Burrows a 3rd line winger and super pest, Bieksa played less than 40 games that year. Luongo played 73 games, won 47, was nominated for the Hart and Vezina and Vigneault won the Jack Adams, based on Luongo's year alone.

I'm not even going to compare to TB, because why would I, but you clearly don't know what you are talking about in regards to the Canucks.
- 1970vintage

Nice summary...thanks for all the info. It's mostly wrong...but thanks.

Wow...I didn't realize this was such a sore point...lol. I just disagree is all. My evaluation is always based on his contract...and I thought his contract was way high for one good year. I know he's a local kid so I'll lay off him.
- djamon

He played really well for his cap hit and I have no reason to believe that'll change in the coming years.

Seriously man? Bieksa was injured yes, and uncertain if he'd be able to come back because of the severity of his injury. I will concede that he was more of a core than the rest. But, the rest were not.

Youre the one who said that Gillis had the exact same core as when he took over. I am countering the opposite. Of course teams change, thats not my argument. My argument is that the core is different and it is.

Just because they're part of the core now doesn't mean they were then.....
- chompsey

Don't concede anything, playing one full year in the NHL does not make you a "core" player, unless you were drafted 1st overall...

Don't concede anything, playing one full year in the NHL does not make you a "core" player, unless you were drafted 1st overall...
- 1970vintage

I'm trying to be cordial but clearly a Leaf fan has a better grasp on the Canucks than a Canuck fan.....

Nice summary...thanks for all the info. It's mostly wrong...but thanks.
- djamon

Really? Do tell.

I'm trying to be cordial but clearly a Leaf fan has a better grasp on the Canucks than a Canuck fan.....
- chompsey

djamon
Toronto Maple Leafs
Location: BC
Joined: 05.27.2013

It's pretty obvious troll fodder.

Edit - Aaron Miller was as much a part of the core as Bieksa

Seriously man? Bieksa was injured yes, and uncertain if he'd be able to come back because of the severity of his injury. I will concede that he was more of a core than the rest. But, the rest were not.

Youre the one who said that Gillis had the exact same core as when he took over. I am countering the opposite. Of course teams change, thats not my argument. My argument is that the core is different and it is.

Just because they're part of the core now doesn't mean they were then.....
- chompsey

The fact that they're still here getting all the ice time 5 years later would seem to indicate THEY WERE PART OF THE CORE THEN!

I said it was virtually unchanged and it is. You obviously think of a "core" differently than I do.

The fact that they're still here getting all the ice time 5 years later would seem to indicate THEY WERE PART OF THE CORE THEN!

I said it was virtually unchanged and it is. You obviously think of a "core" differently than I do.
- djamon

You know when you argue about something for so long you don't really know what you're arguing about anymore...

The fact that they're still here getting all the ice time 5 years later would seem to indicate THEY WERE PART OF THE CORE THEN!

I said it was virtually unchanged and it is. You obviously think of a "core" differently than I do.
- djamon

Clearly, would that mean Komisarek is part of the Leafs core????

Not accounting for 23 players AND having wiggle room is a huge mistake.

Cannata
- 1970vintage

As I said, I accounted for Cannata to take into account the approx $900k a backup will cost. Might be up to $1.5M, but that can easily be taken out of the $1M that is allocated for the lower level skaters (#11-12 F, #7D, none of which should cost $1M).

New cap rules enable you to bring up player on emergency injury basis, so not as necessary as it used to be.

Nice summary...thanks for all the info. It's mostly wrong...but thanks.
- djamon

Then GTFO troll

Clearly, would that mean Komisarek is part of the Leafs core????
- chompsey

No, but Finger was.

we might not be in "cap jail" which would indicate we couldn't get out, but Gillis has his work cut out for him to ice a competitive team while staying under the cap this summer. He will need to be at the top of his game.
- AlexF

Absolutely. But he's set up so that it isn't as difficult to do as everyone seems to think. He should be able to pull it off. If he can't then he should be fired.

Wow...I didn't realize this was such a sore point...lol. I just disagree is all. My evaluation is always based on his contract...and I thought his contract was way high for one good year. I know he's a local kid so I'll lay off him.
- djamon

Two good years now. I would even call this year great—provided the defensive ability of a shut down D, and scored at an exceptional rate.

He earned his salary this season, and will continue to do so if he keeps playing similarly.