Mike Gillis interview / Rumor: Naslund won't play here...unless Vigneault is fired???
From Canucks.com:
Check out the Mike Gillis interview here.
Gillis sounds very serious and stern. If someone isn't carrying out their responsibilities, they're done in Vancouver.
Gillis mentioned that the current Canucks staff will remain in place, and that further evaluations will be made after the draft and free agent frenzy of the summer.
Speaking of staff... the Globe and Mail published a rumor from a source today about Markus Naslund, who apparently stated that he "won't consider re-signing with the Canucks if Alain Vigneault remains as head coach." You know, I think that there could be truth to that, but mostly it sounds like a rumor that would stem from Gillis being Naslund's former agent and maybe Naslund having some sway with the guy. Don't bank on it. Like I said before, Gillis is now in management. He's no longer that player agent cull. His whole mentality will now change. Now HE has to deal with the grease bags, rather than be one.
Ah yes. Times are crazy here. To Gillis' credit though, if he backs his words, he will be a tough GM to work under. Maybe the Canucks organization needs a little house cleaning. maybe it has become stagnant recently. I don't know. But if it has, then you want a Hitler-type to shake things up and lay the hammer down.
My guess is that someone is the scouting staff gets it first.
Regardless of this story, I sure as bloody hell hope Naslund is GONE this summer. Good bye and good riddance.
Alain Vigneault should NOT be fired. That is ludicrous. Gillis gave the Canucks coach a bit of a reason to be confident in his position.
"Coaches handle the assets they have been given," he said. . "The assets here were lean at times."
Check TSN for more on the Gillis press conference.
On another side note, I don't think the Oilers and Nucks will be making any deals with eachother anytime soon. Remember the Nylander-to-Edmonton fiasco last summer? Gillis was Nylander's agent. Today Kevin Lowe said that he thinks Gillis acted “unprofessionally” and “unethically, in the Nylander situation,” adding he likely won't be able to deal with the Canucks new manager because of his lack of trust.
“A lot of deals are done based on honesty and trust. He (Gillis) is going to be in tough earning trust. To orchestrate a trade, you have to have that trust going in.”Hey Lowe, Gillis did you a favor! Nylander is an injury-prone bum! Where's your gratitude?
T Tags: Canucks Mike+Gillis+interview Naslund+rumor
Labels: Canucks
2 Comments:
I've been interested in a lot of the initial reaction to Gillis' hiring because, as an attorney, I have a real working sense of what it means to represent someone and to be their advocate.
As a player agent, Gillis' client was the player and it was his job to get the best deal he could for his client. Presumably, he dealt with GMs, representing their clients, who are big boys and can look after their own interest. Like it or not, that is how business works. In an arm's-length tranaction between sophisticated and well-represented parties, the resulting contract is the result of compromise from both contractor's intial position.
Now, Gillis has left that job and has taken a seat on the other side of the table. Contrary to some of the speculation, this is not a conflict of interest. He's a professional: he now has a new client.
But, to his advantage, he also knows in depth where the other side will be coming from. This is a huge advantage in the law and I would imagine in his GM shoes as well. The reason for this is you have an intimate knowledge of the negotiating process and what is driving the negotiating points.
That said, I think that Lowe's point is well-taken. In legal practice here in Oregon, there is the letter of the law and there is the handshake/word system. The default here is the handshake/word system, backed by the law. When a lawyer tells me that the parties have an agreement, even if the contract is not yet formally signed, you know that the deal is done. As a professional you NEVER go back on this.
Now, if you do--and you CAN do it, after all, legally there is no binding deal yet just an understanding that the parties are going to enter into one along the lines just negotiated--there is nothing that anyone can do to prevent you from doing so. But, in the Oregon legal market, from that day forward your word is now suspect. No one will conclude business with you along the professionally accepted (if unwritten) guidelines.
That is what Lowe is talking about. Technically, I rather doubt that Gillis did anything unethical, strictly speaking. But he broke the common commercial practice in that industry and everyone dealing with him knows that and will conduct themselves accordingly.
This is potentially a bigger negative than one might think because a great deal of business is conducted along those unofficial and informal lines.
In addition to following through with the ideas advanced at his excellent first news conference, Gillis' job one is putting himself on the line by agreeing to informal matters and then following the informal agreements to the letter until the trust is re-established among his peers.
"But, to his advantage, he also knows in depth where the other side will be coming from. This is a huge advantage in the law and I would imagine in his GM shoes as well. The reason for this is you have an intimate knowledge of the negotiating process and what is driving the negotiating points."
I agree with that more and more as time goes by. This is a strength of his no doubt.
I think that regardless of how Gillis handled the Nylander situation, K-Lowe is too loose-lipped, and that if a deal came up with Vancouver that he couldn't refuse, he wouldn't pass it up just because of hard feelings. That would just be acting stupid.
So, you're a lawyer? Oh gad, I better watch what I say on here then :)
Thanks for the in-depth perspective though. Much appreciated.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home