Joey Kenward might be shorter than Dave Randorf

I might have my timing wrong, but I don't think that Bieksa signed "first". Gillis tried to get Ehrhoff to extend and couldn't, so he traded him to Philly or something, who traded him to Buffalo. I don't think Ehrhoff even made it to UFA, I'm pretty sure he signed with Buffalo before July 1. I think he (Ehrhoff) saw an opportunity to cash in and did, simple as that. Players want the security of long contracts, makes sense, their careers are short.
- 1970vintage

Bieksa signed days before Ehrhoff rights were traded to the Islanders and yes it was rumored he turned down Bieksa's contract. He is worth more than Bieksa but yes, he failed to jump on board with the team discount thing. Bieksa was a 5 year deal.... signed before the trade. There a big gap between 5 and 10.

For someone not interested in the discussion, your post is anything but ... I had to scan the thread to see where anyone used the term failure. I see me sharing Gillis' success with Burke and Nonis in a lesser share. To me, that is totally fair... arguing against or using the term "Gillis built" seems a bit unfair to Gillis' predecessors... not that anyone really gives a poop. I wasnt the one who originally brought up Gillis predecessors btw. I just share a different opinion and thats why it stands out. Bloated misrepresented what I said as well... reading my earlier posts would clarify that.
- boonerbuck

I don't want to be argumentative but to say I misrepresented what you said isn't fair. Here's what was said:

Gillis gets credit for adding depth to this team(years ago now) and to be accurate, his lack of forward depth has continued to show its ugly head over and over. For all we know, Nonis could have found the depth to do what Gillis did and beyond because Gillis has proven to most to be overrated now, rightly so.

You've questioned Gillis' body of work twice here. You've said that Gillis' moves have been ugly at best and he is clearly, to most observers anyway, completely overrated.

In a later post you say:

He (Gillis) hit the core's potential at the exact time and threw an injection of quality depth to it

Is it quality depth, a lack of, or is it just plain old ugly? I don't think I misrepresented what you said. Just confused with what you are trying to say.

Have you been on "vacation"? there have been a few new posters in here that share a similar rant to your own, and you were no where to be seen...
- 1970vintage

Nice to be able to stretch my legs again.

Btw I have it on the word of multiple refs that iggysbff reports people all the time. And that they just ignore him because his reputation speaks for itself. Why am I not surprised the dumb kid always has to tell the teacher he is being picked on

Bieksa signed days before Ehrhoff rights were traded to the Islanders and yes it was rumored he turned down Bieksa's contract. He is worth more than Bieksa but yes, he failed to jump on board with the team discount thing. Bieksa was a 5 year deal.... signed before the trade. There a big gap between 5 and 10.
- boonerbuck

Yup. As I said, players like the security of the long deal, but I think Ehrhoff left money on the table by going 10 years. I bet he could have gotten 30 million over 5 years (maybe not from Gillis), and again with the new cap thing expected to go way up and the crazy money that GM's throw at UFA defencemen. Now he is tied to earning $6m in the final 4 years.

After here Torts last night, I say Bo gets sent down. He said he has a lot to learn and IMO that means he will learn some of it in London. I think Shinkurak should play on the 2nd line with Kesler.

After here Torts last night, I say Bo gets sent down. He said he has a lot to learn and IMO that means he will learn some of it in London. I think Shinkurak should play on the 2nd line with Kesler.
- Bieksa#3

At 18, you got to be extra good to play in the NHL. A coach is taking a huge risk playing him. I don't blame torts for playing it safe.

Nice to be able to stretch my legs again.

Btw I have it on the word of multiple refs that iggysbff reports people all the time. And that they just ignore him because his reputation speaks for itself. Why am I not surprised the dumb kid always has to tell the teacher he is being picked on
- Bieksa#3

We're you bad?

We're you bad?
- vancouverdawg

If calling a special needs person special is bad then I'm sorry Iggysbff

I have a feeling u were as well.
- Bieksa#3

one zipper rattling comment gets one sent to the penalty box . I think mine is up now

I don't want to be argumentative but to say I misrepresented what you said isn't fair. Here's what was said:



You've questioned Gillis' body of work twice here. You've said that Gillis' moves have been ugly at best and he is clearly, to most observers anyway, completely overrated.

In a later post you say:



Is it quality depth, a lack of, or is it just plain old ugly? I don't think I misrepresented what you said. Just confused with what you are trying to say.
- bloatedmosquito

OK, I've had to do this in the past to you but lets look again Bloated...

Originally you put my claim that the lack of **forward** depth keeps showing its ugly head in bold and then point to Ehrhoff. Is there any need for more evidence that you are taking what Im saying out of context? Since when is Ehrhoff a forward? ... and you build your argument from there.... even reading it again it floats right by you and you use it as an example again.

You say this just now...

You've questioned Gillis' body of work twice here. You've said that Gillis' moves have been ugly at best and he is clearly, to most observers anyway, completely overrated.

False, you reworded what I said. I said his "lack of forward depth". You turned that into " his moves",,, which contradicts other things I've been saying altogether. Its all in the posts you are making....look again.

Not only that, you take my comment giving Gillis credit with injecting quality depth into the team at the right time in the past and try to turn it around. Seriously, look at the very comments you are quoting,,,, you are dropping words and injecting words for some reason. Why? What is your beef? Why am I always having to beat off these frigging opinions people MAKE for me....

Bieksa signed days before Ehrhoff rights were traded to the Islanders and yes it was rumored he turned down Bieksa's contract. He is worth more than Bieksa but yes, he failed to jump on board with the team discount thing. Bieksa was a 5 year deal.... signed before the trade. There a big gap between 5 and 10.
- boonerbuck

Totally but I dont blame him for saying no. Why should he take less? He isnt an original Van guy....he doesnt owe the organization anything. He was after his money and he got it. Both parties lost in the deal. Van lost erhoff and Erhoff lost playing for a winning team. His total dollar amount was 40 mil. I wish we would have given him a 7 yr deal for 5.5 which would have been close to what he was looking for.

Totally but I dont blame him for saying no. Why should he take less? He isnt an original Van guy....he doesnt owe the organization anything. He was after his money and he got it. Both parties lost in the deal. Van lost erhoff and Erhoff lost playing for a winning team. His total dollar amount was 40 mil. I wish we would have given him a 7 yr deal for 5.5 which would have been close to what he was looking for.
- Bluechip23

So his him 37.5 for 7 yrs? But not 40 for 10

Wow, essentially no suspension for Kessel.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=432669

So his him 37.5 for 7 yrs? But not 40 for 10
- Bieksa#3

I think MG made a mistake with not paying Erhoff. Id take him over bieksa any day of the week. Even if he would have cost us an extra mill in cap hit. Thats all i am saying. Bieksa costs us 4.6. I think Erhoff is easily worth 5.6 to us. The reality was I think MG thought Edler would develop and be that guy but sadly he hasnt.

Totally but I dont blame him for saying no. Why should he take less? He isnt an original Van guy....he doesnt owe the organization anything. He was after his money and he got it. Both parties lost in the deal. Van lost erhoff and Erhoff lost playing for a winning team. His total dollar amount was 40 mil. I wish we would have given him a 7 yr deal for 5.5 which would have been close to what he was looking for.
- Bluechip23

I dont think Ehrhoff was very popular with the rest of the team. Again, there were comments regarding his heart more or less. The mistake of letting him go is a hard one to be critical of. To me it's purely hindsight. Few predicted it would be felt as much as it was. Thinking it wouldnt be felt at all would be a mistake...

Wow, essentially no suspension for Kessel.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=432669
- 1970vintage

Yeah, all I ask for is consistancy. Its like they pick a number out of a hat

I think MG made a mistake with not paying Erhoff. Id take him over bieksa any day of the week. Even if he would have cost us an extra mill in cap hit. Thats all i am saying. Bieksa costs us 4.6. I think Erhoff is easily worth 5.6 to us. The reality was I think MG thought Edler would develop and be that guy but sadly he hasnt.
- Bluechip23

He was great in the other teams end. People forget how awful defensively he was and softer then the twins. As I said they bring different skill sets

one zipper rattling comment gets one sent to the penalty box . I think mine is up now
- vancouverdawg

Thanks for covering for me dude

I dont think Ehrhoff was very popular with the rest of the team. Again, there were comments regarding his heart more or less. The mistake of letting him go is a hard one to be critical of. To me it's purely hindsight. Few predicted it would be felt as much as it was. Thinking it wouldnt be felt at all would be a mistake...
- boonerbuck

Agreed

He was great in the other teams end. People forget how awful defensively he was and softer then the twins. As I said they bring different skill sets
- Bieksa#3

When people say he was "bad" or "soft". I just go back to that analysis from canucks army and how he has performed since he left the canucks and its been fantastic.

http://canucksarmy.com/20...d-probably-win-the-norris

This is a great way to look at a players worth like erhoff.

When people say he was "bad" or "soft". I just go back to that analysis from canucks army and how he has performed since he left the canucks and its been fantastic.

http://canucksarmy.com/20...d-probably-win-the-norris

This is a great way to look at a players worth like erhoff.
- Bluechip23

Fine and Dandy. Hell 2 seasons ago most pundits had edler as a Norris candidate. And he's far younger and more physical. Yet you'd take Hoff over him

Fine and Dandy. Hell 2 seasons ago most pundits had edler as a Norris candidate. And he's far younger and more physical. Yet you'd take Hoff over him
- Bieksa#3

100% id take the Hoff. Never been an edler fan. No reason really other than I just dont like him on our team and I was angry we never traded him. Nothing I would like more than to see edler return to Norris form.

Fine and Dandy. Hell 2 seasons ago most pundits had edler as a Norris candidate. And he's far younger and more physical. Yet you'd take Hoff over him
- Bieksa#3

Id take Hoff over every d we have except Hammer.

When people say he was "bad" or "soft". I just go back to that analysis from canucks army and how he has performed since he left the canucks and its been fantastic.

http://canucksarmy.com/20...d-probably-win-the-norris

This is a great way to look at a players worth like erhoff.
- Bluechip23

The season after he was traded I watched Ehrhoff defend his team's players multiple times and think he may have had 1 more fight than Bieksa that season even.... I know he had 4 that I saw.... Bieksa big on chasing down guys who slash him in the pads but small on stepping up when a Sedin is run headfirst on his shift. He asks for a fight then....and there is no payback at all.

With that being said, Ehrhoff fighting is a frigging joke.