Mark Spector's Brillance, Times 2!

Mark Spector, as we all know, is a brilliant man.

How else can we explain this article (written shortly before the trade deadline), or this article (written shortly thereafter)?

You know, some of the first one makes sense.  "Time for Gillis to roll the dice", says Spector.  I don't necessarily disagree.  If the right deal is there, I'm okay with giving up some of the future for a shot this year.  So what player(s), Mr. Spector, should Gillis be going after?  Well...Spector goes quiet, except for these 2 lines:

So with a Dan Hamhuis on the market, should Gillis be out-bid by the Philadelphia Flyers or Boston Bruins? Or should he be dangling Cory Schneider — we know, Nashville has lots of goalies — Michael Grabner, Steve Bernier, or whomever?

If he can do a trade-and-sign with Hamhuis, is the defenceman worth a first-round pick and a player? The Canucks are within striking range of their first Stanley Cup, and Hamhuis is an elite defenceman.

I have a few problems with that.  The earlier part of the article goes on about how the Canucks aren't as good on paper as the San Jose Sharks or Chicago Blackhawks.  That's fine.  But then the only player he suggests Vancouver go after?  Dan Hamhuis.

As it turns out, Gillis was NOT outbid by the Flyers or Bruins.  And I'm sure if Hamhuis was available for Grabner or especially Bernier and a mid-level pick, he probably does that.  But really, is Dan Hamhuis worth a first round pick AND a player (especially the player which Spector raves about in the earlier part of the article - Cory Schneider?)

And when did Hamhuis become an "elite defenceman"?  Until this week, when he was the biggest name in the "cheaper but solid" defenceman category, I've never heard of him as anything other than a decent top 4 guy.  But to Spector, that's elite.

Of course, we know by now that Nashville decided not to trade Hamhuis.  We also have no idea what options were out there for Gillis, although I suppose we can assume that any player that was traded yesterday COULD have been traded to Vancouver if Gillis had investigated it and outbid whatever the going rate was.  So Spector launches his second assault on Gillis in the same day, with gems including these:

Or Anaheim, which improved itself. Or Phoenix, which already has one more point than the Canucks and made several key moves on Deadline Day. Or Los Angeles, which tweaked its lineup with Jeff Halpern and Fredrik Modin. Even Colorado and Nashville improved, while the Canucks added Alberts, a No. 6 defenceman at best.

Sutter, one of the great triggermen among NHL GMs, stocked his team with six new players before the Olympic break. On Wednesday he cured his greatest remaining ailment, bringing in an excellent backup goalie in Vesa Toskala, and some nice defensive depth with gritty Steve Staios.

Up north, Tambellini's goal was to shed cap space, get younger and perhaps grab a draft pick, and he accomplished it all. Ryan Whitney is $1.6 million cheaper than Lubo Visnovsky, and six years younger. Denis Grebeshkov for a second-rounder works fine for where Edmonton is, and on the day they also added a third- and a sixth-rounder.

Well, let's take a closer look here.

I'd challenge Spector to name a single player that changed addresses yesterday that would have helped the Canucks - and helped the Canucks more than Andrew Alberts will (a low-cost move that works for me).

Halpern?  Maybe an upgrade on Wellwood, maybe not.  Not sure I see the point of Halpern at the cost of a 3rd and Teddy Purcell.  "Regrettably", we don't have an underachieving quasi-prospect like Purcell to give up.

Modin?  Who does he bump out of the top 6?  We've already bumped Samuelsson (and we all know that Samuelsson's better than Modin, just ask him).

Scott Walker?  Aaron Ward?  No better than what we already have.

Eric Belanger?  Maybe.  But we didn't have a 2nd round pick.  So unless you're suggesting Belanger is worth a first, not much could be done there.  And if they gave up a 1st for a rental of Eric Belanger, Spector would be shredding him for spending too much.

Raffi Torres?  Again, not top-6 here, and probably not much better than what we have on line 3 already.  Plus, he's a winger, of which we have too many.

Staios?  Alberts is the same guy, except bigger.

Whitney or Visnovsky?  Hah.  We would have roasted Gillis for screwing our cap space forever.

So what does Gillis do?  He gets a few token parts for a guy who was never going to play here ever again (Mathieu Schneider).  He gets a guy with some NHL experience for someone who will never crack an NHL roster.  And he lands a huge d-man at a great contract for next year for very little, providing some decent depth (and allows him to think about how he wants to allocate his money next year...Alberts can take O'Brien's job for next year and save at least 500k while he's at it).

If there was a deal out there, I'd have been all for Gillis going for it.  Regrettably, it doesn't seem like there was (after Matt Cullen went to Ottawa).  If you want to roast Gillis, you at least have to show what you would have done differently.  Spector doesn't.