| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Guest2262 |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 15:02:45
Any thoughts on Canucks moves today? |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 20:12:28
nuxfan....i was at the game too and it was my first time seeing Kassian live as well. Was pretty impressed and as you said, he and Booth were really flying. Pretty disappointing start, especially since Leino more or less "fanned" on his first shot and i think that contributed to Lou's miss on that one. I was actually more pissed at the second goal as he seems to lose his stick all the time??? Someone's gotta sew that stick onto his blocker hand somehow!!!
As far as Hodgson asking for a trade, i did hear somewhere that he asked AV for more ice time back in January and they figure he may have asked in a "or else trade me" sort of way. I'm sure eventually more will come out on this if it's true. |
| Guest8875 |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 13:37:44
How about the trade they didn't make,
Louie still worth lots. Check
Louie still proving he's a choke artist. Check
Schnieder proving his worth. Check
How is it Van refuses to trade this guy? He lasted about 5 minutes last night?!? Letting in three?!?
Should of grabbed Nash while they still could. Columbus is probaly smart enough to trade him for Louie too. I'm afraid after the playoffs though everyone will see his worth and Van will be stuck with him or have to settle for way less than what they could of got had they traded him by the deadline. I think he is worth 2 sticks and a puck now. (And i'm talking the mini-sticks)[;) |
| Russcores |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 10:33:40
ooops wasn't logged in . guest 8380 was my post
|
| Guest8380 |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 10:30:15
I have read all the posts on this topic and must voice my opinion as well. Being a Canuck fan living in Edmonton I usually do not agree with Beans but I believe he is bang on with his analogy of the trade. Most posters here are viewing the trade Hodgson for Kassian but forget that Gragnani is the equalizing part of the trade. Sultzer is just filler so Buffalo has a back-up d-man.
Beans , you looking for that 3rd liner with similar stats ? Look no further than the canuck line up . Jannik Hansen 14-16-30 in 14:50 of ice time and I am sure he plays at least 2 minutes of that every game killing penalties.
I did not like seeing Cody leave to another team but have come to terms that it makes sense for the Canucks and makes them a more complete team. With all things considered (especially salary cap) and the teams needs I believe both teams win with the players exchanged. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 03/03/2012 : 23:18:38
quote:
Originally posted by Clatts
It's rumoured that Hodgson asked for a trade due to lack of minutes
"Most of the guys that wear them are Europeans and French Guys."
Don Cherry on Visors
It is rumoured, and so far Hodgson nor his agent have shot it down (despite many chances to do so), just adding fuel to the fire. It would not surprise me if he had asked for one, nor do I blame him - he's better than a 3rd line centre, and he was never going to be otherwise in Vancouver.
Got back from the big VAN/BUF tilt tonight... despite the clusterf*** start for Luongo the team, it was an entertaining tilt and a good comeback attempt that sadly fell short. The best Canucks on the ice - Booth and Kassian, by a long shot. Kassian was hitting everything that moved tonight (no doubt he wanted to get shots in on his old team), and had a goal and an assist. Boothy had 2 goals himself and looked dangerous every time he was on the ice. How did we ever survive before without skilled power forwards?
Its the first game I've been to since the trade....and it felt different. The players on the ice were playing a harder style of hockey, and the fans were reacting well to it Perhaps it was the bad start and that they were playing catchup from the getgo.... I'm used to going to games and ooing and aaaahing over the Sedin's deft passing and pretty goals, but tonight it was a bone crashing game - lots of hitting and muscling onto the puck by the big guys, and relatively little finesse from the skill guys. It was a good balance and I liked what I saw. Kassian is growing on me quickly, thats for sure. |
| Clatts |
Posted - 03/03/2012 : 21:23:03
It's rumoured that Hodgson asked for a trade due to lack of minutes
"Most of the guys that wear them are Europeans and French Guys."
Don Cherry on Visors |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 19:24:23
Hey Slozo, a couple of things:
The analogy of the Ferrari vs the Combine is a very good comparison to this situation. The question isn't would you or would you not, it's what is the best vehicle for the situation? You would not put a Combine in a street race nor would you harvest your wheat crop with a Ferarri. The vehicle has no value, it's the situation that creates the value. In the right situations they are worth every penny and in the wrong situation they are worth hardly nothing. More applicable to this situation, if you have 4 Ferrari's and no Combines but you had to street race and harvest a field, would it not make sense to sacrifice one Ferarri for a Combine???
To the Viktor Stalberg point, I admit I smiled a little when he fit the bill we were discussing. Knowing he was once a Leaf and I don't think the Leafs seen much positive talent come from that deal is pretty sweat for a 'Leaf hater" like me. I won't lie about that.
I do concede there are few players like that in the NHL today. I think the reason is that most teams do not put top 6 talent on the bottom 6 group. So, I would think there are a number of guys who could do what Hodgson has done this season, they just don't get the change because they play too many minutes.
That last one was a very odd statement, hey?? |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 16:12:23
Statman, love the spreadsheet / calculator comment! You know how many times i listen to guys calling in to the radio station proposing trades that would never work??? "Why didn't we just trade Hodgson, Shroeder and a couple picks for Rick Nash"??? Yeah, like that would work. I don't even need the calculator for that one!
As for Pahlsson, i simply meant that he has to play his role well, considering we had a few other options like Lapierre and Malhotra who could do a similar role, AND chip in more offense most likely. |
| Statman |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 15:59:34
Well, Pahlsson's a checker, so it will be more difficult for him to flop, particularly in a span of about 20 games. And though it's being looked at as a rental, I would think that they have a good chance at retaining him, especially with him being such close friends of the Sedins. Hopefully he does work out and play as well as he did in Anaheim's run. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 15:50:30
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I agree that Hodgson is "misplaced" and misused on that third line, but hey - if you're not going to get back true worth, then why make the deal if it might only help you long term (in the Canucks situation).
Slozo, unfortunately not every trade is equal, especially the moment it is completed. Usually, one side looks to have gotten the better of the other team. BUT, time will tell as with any trade. Now, as i've stated before, i don't doubt for a second that Hodgson will be the best player in the end in this deal, but when trading for a team's needs, especially a contending team, you often have to over pay for the asset you require. I don't doubt for a second that Gillis was asked about Hodgson in any deal in which he tried to aquire his grit. Rumoured deals for Ott, Gaustad, Neil, Downie type players likely all had opposing GM's asking for Hodgson. Gillis chose to go with a young guy who, while not as proven in the role as those others, has a better upside in future talent. The other key here is Pahlsson. If that hadn't been able to lock him up, i don't think they do this trade and perhaps wait till the draft to move Hodgson. It was all about changing the look / role of the 3rd line.
There's also been a ton of talk around here as to whether or not Hodgson's camp requested a trade at any point. His agent adamantly denies it, though admits they'd been asking for more ice time, and MG stated that he wouldn't address stuff like that that goes on behind closed doors (Canucks policy). I don't doubt he'd have asked at some point, maybe even this summer, but i can't imagine him desperately wanting to go anywhere now when they've got a legitimate shot at the cup, AND he's been contributing.
My biggest fear post-trade deadline, is that Pahlsson flops and Malhotra or Lapierre, two guys the Canucks already had on the roster, end up centering the 3rd line. Then again, if that happens, what would they have done with Cody at that point anyway?
Snagged some tickets through a customer of mine for Saturday's Vancouver / Buffalo game! Should be entertaining and will be interesting to see how Hodgson and Kassian play for their new teams against their old ones! |
| Statman |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 15:41:52
Damn, I really hate the new economics of the NHL with it's salary cap. Don't get me wrong, it's great for the health of the league and that's the most important thing, but every time you want to do trade talk you need a calculator and a spreadsheet! Lol. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 15:35:04
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I agree that Hodgson is "misplaced" and misused on that third line, but hey - if you're not going to get back true worth, then why make the deal if it might only help you long term (in the Canucks situation).
I think it should be clear that this deal is supposed to help now - Kassian and Gragnani will be with the team for the rest of the season and playoffs. Hodgson was not going to be traded for a pure prospect.
The question really is - what do the Canucks get from Kassian now? They get 3 things:
- a very solid body that can be physically punishing and strong, on the 3rd line. Kassian will pretty much take Hodgson's place on the 3rd line, and he instantly turns that line from a pretty good scoring threat to a hard physical checking line (along with Malhotra and Hansen/Higgins). They need that this year, and they are going to get it.
- a promising young prospect power forward. He's not going to contribute much on the scoresheet now, but if he lives up to even half potential this trade will be a good one for the Canucks.
- cap relief - something that is not talked about much but is of serious concern for a team that spends most of its days a few hundred thousand from the cap. Kassian and Gragnani earn a combined 1.3M, while Hodgson was nearly 1.7M in salary+bonuses that he'll hit this year. Gragnani is RFA next year, and the team expects that they'll resign him for about the same. Kassian is in the first year of his EL deal, so 2 more years @ 850K. Hodgson on the other hand, will be in the last year of his EL deal next year, and will almost certainly command a raise - if he keeps going like this, 2.5-3M a year in his next deal would not be unreasonable, and it could be more depending on how his deal goes next year. After next season, the Canucks will still have a good prospect on an EL deal while they spend their cap dollars on Sedin's, Kesler, Luongo, etc - and will be able to keep this group together.
While its nice to think that Hodgson could have fetched a more established player, the reality is that VAN has so little cap wiggle room that taking on even a 1.5M salary this season would have likely meant another move at the deadline. Kassian was good in that a) he fills a need for the Canucks, b) he's a highly touted prospect and on an EL deal for 2 more years, and c) he has NHL experience and can contribute in some way right now. |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 14:57:29
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Slozo, please don't tell me you are trying to say that Ryan Jones or Cal Clutterbuck on the 2nd line PP in Edmonton or Minnesota is even close to the comparison of the Canucks 2nd line in terms of talent.
Secondly, if you are comparing straight up points then of course Hodgson is the cream of that crop. However, who is the cream of that crop when it comes to defensive play or physical play?? I would say that Hodgson is likely the bottom of that list.
So, do you want a guy who will get you 40ishpts on the 3rd line and not play defense as well as a guy who will get you 35ish pts on the 3rd line AND shut down the other teams top line??
The Canucks don't need a Ferarri, they need a Combine. They want to harvest their Orchard (Alex, that's is how many brain works at 6am without coffee. Nicely done. I totally deserved it).
I except the challenge of, "I dare you to find anything remotely compareable this year." Here you go:
Viktor Stalberg - 16G, 16A - 32 pts - 13:33 MPG
Is that enough of anything remotely close or should I keep going?? There are around 10 guys in the NHL that are around the same minutes and scoring close to the same amount. Granted, Hodgson has more points in fewer minutes, but they are more than remotely comparable. Furthermore, not all of these guys are playing on Vancouvers PP. Other guys like Arnott, McGinn, and Miller are comparable in goals, assists, points, or both and playing fewer minutes. They are not as high as Hodgson, but more than close enough to be considered 'remotely' close.
But Beans, the question isn't whether the Canucks need a Ferrari or a combine . . . it's whether you trade your Ferrari for a combine.
I agree that Hodgson is "misplaced" and misused on that third line, but hey - if you're not going to get back true worth, then why make the deal if it might only help you long term (in the Canucks situation).
That Stalberg reference hurts even more since he's an ex-Leaf, ouch. Fair enough, and good on you to pick him out. But you will concede at least that there are few and far in between of that calibre (and I'll argue long and hard on Hodgson being twice the talent Stalberg is).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 13:46:25
Slozo, please don't tell me you are trying to say that Ryan Jones or Cal Clutterbuck on the 2nd line PP in Edmonton or Minnesota is even close to the comparison of the Canucks 2nd line in terms of talent.
Secondly, if you are comparing straight up points then of course Hodgson is the cream of that crop. However, who is the cream of that crop when it comes to defensive play or physical play?? I would say that Hodgson is likely the bottom of that list.
So, do you want a guy who will get you 40ishpts on the 3rd line and not play defense as well as a guy who will get you 35ish pts on the 3rd line AND shut down the other teams top line??
The Canucks don't need a Ferarri, they need a Combine. They want to harvest their Orchard (Alex, that's is how many brain works at 6am without coffee. Nicely done. I totally deserved it).
I except the challenge of, "I dare you to find anything remotely compareable this year." Here you go:
Viktor Stalberg - 16G, 16A - 32 pts - 13:33 MPG
Is that enough of anything remotely close or should I keep going?? There are around 10 guys in the NHL that are around the same minutes and scoring close to the same amount. Granted, Hodgson has more points in fewer minutes, but they are more than remotely comparable. Furthermore, not all of these guys are playing on Vancouvers PP. Other guys like Arnott, McGinn, and Miller are comparable in goals, assists, points, or both and playing fewer minutes. They are not as high as Hodgson, but more than close enough to be considered 'remotely' close. |
| Statman |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 13:31:30
I would like to reiterate my original point about Hodgson, as I see we got somewhat sidetracked.
Beans, you are trying to justify to me why Hodgson wouldn't work in Vancouver over the long run, but that is a fact that I had already admitted to in my first post.
I do see the need for the move to acquire a big power-forward winger, as well. My problems with this deal are A) the timing of it (I feel the team would have ben better served doing this move at the draft) and B) the fact that we got somebody that hasn't taken that initial first successful step into the league as Cody has.
I have nothing against Kassian, and I LOVE the acquisitions of Pahlsson and Gragnani.
As for the idea of Alex selling his soul and the entire Canucks team to win the cup, I have a warning for you Alex; Championships are the greatest thing in the world when they happen, but the light dims quickly and they become quite fleeting. I recall the Florida Marlins winning a world series and then selling off all their players, and then just a couple years later that championship wasn't even mentioned in their media guide. What a waste!
My point is don't ignore the trip while you are waiting to reach the destination.
quote:
Simply put, if a player's junior career had any meaning what so ever, guys like Doug Wickenheiser, David Gilbert, Brad Patrick, and Patrick Sound would have been the best players in the history of the NHL. Never heard of them before??? Use google. I don't have time to educate.
PS- Beans, I am well aware of Wickenheiser, but I was hoping you have time today to educate me as to who David Gilbert, Brad Patrick, and Patrick Sound are. (Being as they are fictional, and all) |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 11:04:18
And to add to what I just posted,
Getting put on any power play unit - ESPECIALLY on a Canucks team which is one of the top teams in the league, and certainly one of the top pp units - is EXACTLY an indication of skill level, and how good a player is. Not always, but usually, the best players get to play on the power play.
I would argue that Hodgson could be on the first unit of many power plays in the league. He may even work himself onto Buffalo's 1st unit, in time, and he might even score a lot of points on their power play because he is a talented player.
Will you then complain that he gets all his points on the power play? 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 11:00:01
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Beans,
Please compare apples to apples here.
To be fair to the other players you mention, Hodgson also gets second line PP minutes (in fact pretty much owned that second PP unit). I don't think many (if any) of the other "3rd line" players you mentioned get any sort of time on the PP. It is an advantage for Hodgson.
EDIT - ah, I see Alex mentioned the same.
PP points
Cody Hodgson - 5 ppg, 5ppa - 10 points
David Jones - 3ppg, 3ppa - 6 pts (2nd pp unit I believe)
Cal Cutterbuck - 2ppg, 1ppa - 3 pts (2nd pp unit I imagine)
Ryan Jones - 2ppg, 3ppa - 5 pts(plays on second pp unit)
Curtis Glencross - 6ppg, 3ppa - 9 pts (I think he plays on 1st unit)
You know guys, you can also look this stuff up . . . 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 10:42:25
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
EDIT - ah, I see Alex mentioned the same.
What? You don't read my stuff?  |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 09:53:44
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Beans,
Please compare apples to apples here.
To be fair to the other players you mention, Hodgson also gets second line PP minutes (in fact pretty much owned that second PP unit). I don't think many (if any) of the other "3rd line" players you mentioned get any sort of time on the PP. It is an advantage for Hodgson.
EDIT - ah, I see Alex mentioned the same. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 07:59:46
quote:
Originally posted by Statman
Alex, I generally respect your opinions and think you are one of the good ones on this forum. I guess we're just going to have to disagree on this one.
Statman, i appreciate that, although our disagreement is really just our opinions so no sweat. We won't know for a few years what sort of potential Hodgson fulfills, so we'll have to be patient and one of us can gloat then! lol 
Beans, if anyone traded a Ferrari for an orchid, i'd be absolutely horrified. Now, if you're talking about an "ORCHARD", as in the apples you so speak of, that could be different! Unless of course that Orchid is time spent with Carre Otis, from the movie "Wild Orchid", then maybe the deal would be a little more fair. Prob aging myself with a reference to a movie from the 80's, lol. Btw, just buggin' ya, not meaning to pick at your english, it just seemed kinda funny, a car for a flower.
I still think what people are missing here is the fact that the trade was made in an effort to allow AV to ice the lineup / lines (types of lines) he wanted for the playoffs. I continue to read Canuck fans on all sorts of articles, boards, etc crying about where our scoring will come from now, esp if Kesler or Sedin gets hurt? Well, i got news for ya, if either of those guys gets hurt, it makes things far more difficult to win, with or without Hodgson.
Slozo, yes, Hodgson has produced some really nice numbers, better than those mentioned perhaps, but lets not forget that he does get 2nd PP time. Do those others get that? I'm not being a smartass here either, i don't know the answer, but i do know he's got almost 1/3 of his points on the PP.
I'll be the first to admit, if i was building a team from scratch, i'd pick Hodgson over Kassian any day! But, when your team has two guys that do what he does, better than he does at this point in time, AND you're in a position whereby you have a "window of opportunity" to win the grand prize, you make trades to address your needs and that's exactly what this deal was. I still think that Kassian will play only a small role, likely on the 4th line, just to add a bit of grit and toughness to the Canucks to keep the other teams honest. Again, it was more about changing the dynamics of the team's 3rd line. Hodgson simply wasn't what they needed / wanted at that position, partially because he currently is a liability defensively, as shown by the fact he was rarely on the ice, especially for defensive zone faceoffs, late in close games.
Here's the most important thing to me though. While i don't "expect" the Canucks to win the cup this year, i think this move increases their chance, therefore, this trade is good in the short term. IF, and it's a big IF, the Canucks win the cup (even just one!!!) in the next 3 -4 years, i could care less if Hodgson goes on to break most of Grezkey's records! That's 100% the truth. I think this city and the Canucks fans (well, us good ones anyway ) have suffered long enough that one cup (please, no "two girls..." jokes  ) at this point, would satisfy me a lifetime!!! Heck, i'd trade Schneider, Hodgson, Schroeder, the Sedins, Kesler, Edler, their wives, my Ferrari (oh wait, i don't have one, but i could prob get an orchid) and i'd even consider throwing in Stanley Park, for a game 7 win last June!
THAT'S how badly i want it!  |
| Guest6498 |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 06:54:41
I think the only reason Beans likes this deal is because it (potentially) hurts the Canucks, lol. |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 06:22:42
Beans,
Please compare apples to apples here.
Cody Hodgson - ATOI 12:44, 16g, 17a, 33 pts
Plays on third line, gets LOW 3rd line minutes.
Compared with . . .
David Jones - ATOI 15:02, 15g, 13a, 28 pts
Playing on third line mostly, but gets low 2nd line minutes.
Cal Cutterbuck - ATOI 16:19, 14g, 8a, 22 pts.
Plays on a third line, sometimes 2nd line, get's 2nd line mins.
Ryan Jones - ATOI 15:19, 14g, 11a, 25 pts
Plays on 3rd line, gets 2nd line minutes.
Curtis Glencross - ATOI 18:18, 19g, 15a, 34 pts
Playing second line, high 2nd line minutes.
Now tell me,
How are any of these guys compareable in terms of ice time per game with Hodgson? Can you think of a player in the NHL right now even CLOSE to Hodgson's numbers, while playing under 13 minutes a game? I can't.
Most of these other guys bring more to the table, because they are more "true" 3rd liners . . .
Hodgson's pace is incredible, for his time on ice, Beans. I dare you to find anything remotely compareable this year.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 05:49:58
Stupifying?? Moron?? Statsman, if I did something to offend you, please let me know. If not, I will kindly ask you to follow the forum guidelines and leave then personal attacks out of your posts. I said nothing personal towards you however I did take offense to your comments. I disagree with your opinion and provided examples as to why. I would appreciate the respect of not having my opinion called stupifying or be called a moron simply because I disagree with your opinion. Different does not mean wrong.
Now, to your legitimate points in your post:
If you don't have to give something to get something than you would accept a $5 billing a trade for a $100 bill. Let me give another analogy. You live in DT Vancouver and drive a Ferarri. (Congrats on your success by the way). You are happy with your life but you want something more and decide that running an orchid is your life long dream. On your way to the orchid, you stop and trade in your Ferarri for a John Deere Combine. Your old friends in Vancouver are going to think you are a complete moron for trading in your sweet ride. But what will they think about thinks when you are harvesting your mutli-million dollar apple crop with your Combine???
I pose another question to you: Would you have been happy if the deal was Hodgson for Lucic??? If so, that is Kassian's potential. You do appreciate that Kassian is a year younger than Hodgson, right?? Kassian has not had a chance to play in the NHL and has taken about the same amount of time to crack the NHL as Hodgson did. Obviously, Gillis sees something that is valuable enough to move a player like Hodgson. Frankly, not only do I see it but I agree that Kassian is the kind of player the Canucks have been missing.
Finally, I don't mean to sound disrespectful and maybe I have missed all the clutch performances, but 2 GWG and a pace for 20 goals as a 3rd line player is not unheard of. Those numbers are certainly comparable to Ryan Jones, Curtis Glencross, Cal Clutterbuck, and David Jones. Those are all guys who are getting 3rd line minutes and producing in the same range as Hodgson. If I can find a guy that is comparable to Hodgson on every team in the Canucks division, it is likely there is one on every team in the NHL. Difference being is that all of the players I named bring more to the table, defensively speaking, than Hodgson does.
Now, before you jump all over me for that last comment, please appreciate that Hodgson has more potential and would produce more than any of those guys in 1st or 2nd line roles. However, there is no room for Hodgson in Vancouver's top lines. So, to get a player who can likely produce in the same range in a 3rd line role but bring more size and defensive abilities to the table is a good move in my opinion. Trade in a Ferarri for a Combine.
I guess time will tell, as I do have foresight but not a crystal ball. I believe that if the Canucks don't win it will not be based on missing Hodgson's scoring. They have that in droves already. I do believe that if the Canucks do win, it will be because they added the elements of Pahlsson and Kassian to their line-up. I also really like that Gragnani kid in the short and long term as well. |
| @valanche |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 05:37:35
.... so apparently canucks fans are in the
anger
phase of reaction to this change.
phew! they skipped denial that woulda been kinda wierd!
66 is > than 99 |
| Statman |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 00:07:52
Wow, Beans. As usual your comments are stupifying.
As I mentioned (well before you did), not everybody fulfills the promise of their junior numbers. No need to make a list for me. And I'm sure I probably don't need to make a list for you of guys that have had amazing careers after putting up huge junior numbers. It's an indicator that the player has the talent but there are other factors at play, for sure.
I don't care if you didn't say "Wow" when watching him. He gets third line minutes and still beats the best teams in the league with clutch performances. Those big goals, late in games aren't about what he can do down the road. He was winning games for us NOW!
Now let's move on to your "what if" scenario. IF Kassian gets 50 pts and IF the Canucks win two cups in the next five years, does that make me forget about Hodgson? Nope, not by a long shot. Though I will look more favourably on the trade, of course. Then again maybe Kassian develops into Alec Stojanov to Hodgson's Markus Naslund.
Hindsight is 20/20. That's a refrain used repeatedly by those lacking foresight. My other pet peave of a line used by morons is "you have to give something to get something". Sounds good. Give me a $100 bill and a will give you back a five. You got something right?! Are you good with that deal? Hey, you had to give something to get something! That's a B.S. line fed to us by people that have just been taken to the cleaners in a trade.
Finally, I want to clear the air about one thing. I don't dislike Kassian. He was pretty solid at the world juniors and I do think he can help out the Canucks. I'm not sold on the fact that this is the year that will happen, but seeing the backlash that has come from this, the team seems willing to give him the opportunity. I hope he takes the most of it.
Alex, I generally respect your opinions and think you are one of the good ones on this forum. I guess we're just going to have to disagree on this one. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/29/2012 : 20:57:05
Statman, offense taken. Simply put, if a player's junior career had any meaning what so ever, guys like Doug Wickenheiser, David Gilbert, Brad Patrick, and Patrick Sound would have been the best players in the history of the NHL. Never heard of them before??? Use google. I don't have time to educate.
What I do have time to do is say again, in the 20 or so games of Hodgson's games I have watched he has been just another player on the ice. Not bad, but not the best player on the ice. Not once do I recall saying, "wow" at all.
So ya, if Hodgson goes on to score 70 ish points, it might be a loss to the Canucks. However, the Canucks already have 3 or so guys that will do that or more. What happens if Kassian becomes a 50 pt a season guy and the Canucks win 2 Cups in the next 5 years. Then what??? I bet you won't say that you miss Cody Hodgson!!
Hindsight is always 20/20. With what we know today, it is hard to argue that Hodgson was not getting into the top 6 group in Vancouver any time soon. The Canucks were missing the big strong forwards to make it tough for the other teams to play against. You gotta give something to get something. They gave what they could afford to give up to get what they think they needed.
PS, Kassian has a pretty decent junior career himself, including a Memorial Cup. Does Hodgson have one of those?? Nope. That must mean he sucks. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 02/29/2012 : 19:15:17
Statman.....before i even start, i hope you know i'm a big Hodgson fan. Loved him when i first got to watch him during the WJC's and followed him more once the Canucks drafted him. I believe i even mentioned in a thread on here once not that long ago that i'd love to see the Canucks go after Matt Duchene, Cody's former team mate and good buddy from junior.
However, no offense, but i think my thinking he's a 70-75 point guy is far more realistic than your viewing of his junior resume saying he's a "top 5 player in the league" and "a guy who could score 100 points on mutlitple occasions". C'mon, explain something to me. If he was considered to have a shot at being one of the top 5 players in the NHL, why did 9 guys get picked before him in his draft year alone? I think you're being very optimistic! Sure, it could happen, i guess, but as much as i loved Hodgson here and still do as a player, i don't think he's gonna be cracking the top 5 anytime soon.
Very much like i said about Kassian by comparing him to Lucic / Bertuzzi vs Bernier, i'll say the same of Cody. He could very well be the next Toews, but he could just as easily be the next Kyle Wellwood. I think he'll be somewhere in between personally and won't be the least bit surprised if he never hits a point per game, but that will depend a lot on his linemates and the Sabres team moving forward.
Regardless of whether or not this trade blows up in the Canucks' face and causes us fans another Neely nightmare, i wish him well in his future in the NHL. I just hope Kassian pans out as well! |
| Statman |
Posted - 02/29/2012 : 16:48:41
Beans, no offense to you and the two or so games you have watched of Cody Hodgson, but there is a reason people around these parts are so upset to watch him go.
World Under 18 Top Scorer
World Under 20 Top Scorer
OHL Player Of The Year
CHL Player Of The Year
And now he is putting up strong point totals with little ice time in the NHL. Alex, you mention that you see him as a 70-75 point guy with the right line mates, in the right situation. If that turns out to be his career path I would be, grossly disappointed. His junior resume is that of a top five player in the NHL and a guy who could score 100 points on mutlitple occasions. Though I do realize many people fail to live up to their potential, most people around these parts think Cody was on his way to fulfilling that promise. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 02/29/2012 : 11:43:00
Again, it all comes down to how well Kassian pans out in his projected roll. If he's closer to Lucic or Bertuzzi (in his prime) than he is Steve Bernier, then it'll be a good deal for the Canucks, even if Hodgson develops into a ppg first line center for Buffalo. It was a trade of/for needs.
Beans, i fell in love with Hodgson at the WJC's a few years back where i still say he was the best player and deserved MVP over Tavares. If he becomes anything close to what Tavares seems to be developing into, then Buffalo got a gem. Gotta give to get though and, although i know i'm repeating myself, the Canucks didn't just trade Hodgson for the future, they traded him as part of an effort to re-shape their 3rd line! It is a complete change in the concept of how this team plans on playing moving forward. Hodgson simply wasn't, at this point in his career, going to be valuable enough to the Canucks in the only role available for him so they chose to go a different route with a more traditional checking line all while upgrading their grit/toughness, not just for now, but for the future.
As far as Hodgson's potential, who knows? But at this point, he's putting up some really decent numbers considering his TOI and the linemates he's had. At this early stage of his career, it's hard to believe he can't become a 70-75 point guy with the right linemates in the right situation.
A good deal both ways imo, though Buff so far has the more proven asset for sure! |
| Guest3021 |
Posted - 02/29/2012 : 11:13:15
Yeah, that was probably the main reason I was sad to see Hodgson go nuxfan, he was absolute clutch this year, and he moved the puck better than anyone on the team (not including the magical twin magnetism).
That being said, I watched the game last night and was quite impressed with Kassian. He seems to be a smart player who made some beauty passes, and had a couple of great scoring chances. His work in the corners maybe needs to get a bit better, but I think Buffalo fans probably felt similar about seeing him go to the way we're feeling about seeing Hodgson go...so that's something.
Didn't really notice Pahlsson last night, but he's a shut down guy anyway.
I will quickly adress Beans, you're absolutely right, and it's the reason I was questioning this trade initially. If the canucks lose a top six, and a D (hello Salo) to injury, which is very likely, we might not have that bottom six guy to step up and provide needed scoring in a long gritty playoff round. Having a money goal scorer like Hodgson there would be comforting to say the least.
But I get the new look of the team, the traditional lines, the checking line freeing up the scoring line to play more offensively, and I like it, it's a very new look for the canucks since a long time back. I'm just saying that for in order for that to work, the top six have got to start going to work. (Kesler especially)
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/29/2012 : 11:07:59
Well, each person is entitled to their own opinion. I didn't see what you did in Hodgson. Granted, you likely watch 3 Canuck games for every 1 that I see, but in the game I have watched this season he did not impress me. I never got the impression that he was an impact player. He will be a very good player but I don't see the hype. He surely is not Eberle, Hall, or RNH. I see impact from those guys regardless of the line they are on. But I digress.
I completely agree that this is what Vancouver needed, so I think it's a good deal. I highly doubt that Vancouver (or their fans) will regret this deal in the short or long term. If it does happen, it's impossible to regret winning the Stanley Cup, right???
Although, I have also been wrong a few times in my life. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 02/29/2012 : 10:50:30
Oh, I don't know Beans - Hodgson was good, for sure. He is an extremely intelligent player that sees the ice well, and scored in bunches with little help. Its one thing to score repeatedly playing with Hall, Eberle, Hemsky and top line/top PP minutes. Its another entirely to nearly match those numbers playing with Hansen, Malhotra, Lapierre, on the second PP unit with 13 minutes of playing time per game.
The thing that always got me was how clutch his goals were. More than half scored in big games at big times, most of them clutch goals when the Canucks really needed one. Very calm and collected on the ice, passed well and had a wicked shot when he wanted to pull it out. He made that 3rd line a scoring threat, and the Canucks will miss it.
He just turned 22, and will be an instant second line centre in BUF. I do think he has the tools to be a first line centre at some point in his career, probably not that far down the road.
That being said - I do agree that the Canucks needed to get what they got in Kassian and Pahlsson. Watched them play last night, they were obviously out of sorts trying to gel with the team, but they both looked good and fast. Kassian showed he has hands, was absolutely robbed by Smith a couple of times. Once they gel with the team, Vancouver should be good to go, and be tougher to play against.
Some humour - I was listening to the news last night, the Vancouver media had a chance to interview Kassian before the game last night. He said he was surprised with being interviewed so soon, and was just looking forward to coming to Vancouver, playing his game and flying under the radar
Good luck with that, welcome to Vancouver! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/29/2012 : 10:17:58
Now I am not saying the Canucks will win the Cup without question. There is always freak situations that could happen. However, I think the only think that can beat the Canucks today is health. If they run into injuries, all bets are off. However, if they are health, they are fabulous. I agree that Hodgson is likely the best player in the deal but I think people are grossly over rating this kid. I don't see him being a #1 line centre. He is a #2 and a very good one at that. But if that's not what the Canucks need, it's a waste.
The Canucks needs were to be able to slow/stop the oppositions forwards. That's it. Looking at last year's playoffs, the only team that did not give the Canucks problems was Nashville as they did not have a solid group of forwards. They nearly lost to Chicago, they were ridiculously out-shot and out-played by San Jose but found a way to win, and Boston simply ran them over. I truly believe that the games and Canucks won against Boston was had more to do with Boston playing poorly than Vancouver playing well.
Pahlsson and Kassian give them a pile of sandpaper up front and Gragnani has a lot (tons actually) of offensive upside from the point.
I like this deal for Vancouver a lot more than others do. I don't think Hodgson is as good as some think he is and he was not the puzzle piece that Vancouver needs to win. |
| just1n |
Posted - 02/29/2012 : 09:47:11
Great point Alex, regarding a 3rd line as a shut down line. It's definitely a needed thing in the playoffs. Recalling the two previous years in which the Canucks lost to Chicago, you may recall that the Nucks had a helluva time shutting them down in those Game 6's. No room for Hodgson with Pahlsson as well.
Time will tell. Lots to give up, hopefully Gragnani will be good too. He was part of the same deal I'm sure, not separate for Sulzer. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 02/28/2012 : 12:09:15
quote:
Originally posted by Guest3021
I'm still not sold on this trade and here's why. If the canucks had played Tampa Bay in last years playoffs and not Botston (it cam close), then I think they would have either won the cup, or if they didn't, it would not have been because of team toughness.
I feel like the gillis with this trade made an attempt to upgrade his team for a playoff round against teams like Boston. But what if he gets matched up against only skill teams in four rounds?
If the Canucks come up against a pure skill team this year, they can run all over them with their newfound size like the Bruins did last year
But seriously, come on - the Canucks have tons of scoring skill left with the team. Its why they only have room on the 3rd line and second PP unit for someone like Hodgson, who would be a top-6 forward on most other teams, right now. The reason this trade happened at all is because they have faith in the Sedin's, Burrows, Kesler, Booth, Raymond, Higgins, and Hansen (not to mention Salo, Edler, Bieksa on the blueline) to be able to provide the scoring. |
| topcornermax |
Posted - 02/28/2012 : 11:43:07
I think the Hodgson deal was a classic move that is going to bite Canucks in the ass later on the road |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 02/28/2012 : 11:32:21
quote:
Originally posted by Leafs81
But Kassian is a big forward and is exactly what Vancouver needs, maybe not right now but I'm sure the Canucks fans will love him down the road. Good acquisition by both teams and lets not forget the Canucks got Gragnani.
The Gragnani comment is very interesting. If i'm not mistaken, the trade of Gragnani for Sulzer was announced separately from the Hodgson deal. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i saw them listed separately. On paper, it would seem Hodgson is the best player, followed by Kassian due to his potential, Gragnani and then Sulzer. What i'm getting at, is i wonder if it was a totally separate deal or if the Gragnani for Sulzer bit was a bit of an extra that Gillis maybe asked for? Not a big deal really, just curious.
Guest3021 - Good points. Funny though, i was actually hoping to play Boston. For some reason, TB scared the $&%# outta me! So much firepower last year in the playoffs! Either way, i think the need to beef up the Canucks was more than just for "IF" we face Boston again. Bottom line is, the playoffs are a grind. Any team can use some size and grit if they're going to go the distance.
As far as Hodgson helping them more this year in the playoffs, scroll up and read what i wrote above if you didn't already. Gillis made it clear that he wanted a totally different look to his 3rd line for various reasons. |
| Guest3021 |
Posted - 02/28/2012 : 11:23:55
I'm still not sold on this trade and here's why. If the canucks had played Tampa Bay in last years playoffs and not Botston (it cam close), then I think they would have either won the cup, or if they didn't, it would not have been because of team toughness.
I feel like the gillis with this trade made an attempt to upgrade his team for a playoff round against teams like Boston. But what if he gets matched up against only skill teams in four rounds?
Also, the other reason the canucks lost was, lets be honest, Tim Thomas played out of his mind, and the canucks top six dried up. Did any of you see the look on Tim Thomas' face when Cody Hodgson blasted that rocket right past him a few weeks age? The kid can score.
I don;t think this trade helps the canucks for this year at all. Maybe later and I'm willing to entertain that based on the fact that Hodgson for sure would not have moved up in the lineup. However, I feel like they maybe should have hung onto him for this playoff run at least and then make a trade in the off season. |
| Leafs81 |
Posted - 02/28/2012 : 11:11:31
Being on the east cost I don't see Hodgson play much but I only heard praises about him so far so it hurts to see him go in a division rivals.
But Kassian is a big forward and is exactly what Vancouver needs, maybe not right now but I'm sure the Canucks fans will love him down the road. Good acquisition by both teams and lets not forget the Canucks got Gragnani.
Samuel Pahlson has a Stanley Cup ring and will bring stability and toughness to their third line. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 02/28/2012 : 11:10:10
Slozo, i totally understand where you're coming from and that's what i alluded to earlier when i mentioned Ott and Gaustad. The word around here, straight from Gillis, is that he wasn't willing to deal a young guy like Cody for and older guy, especially for a rental like Gaustad. I'm assuming that means that Dallas and Buff wouldn't accept what he offered so he went a different route. He's also stated that he wanted a true 3rd line, one not with a scorer like Hodgson, but a shut down type line which will be difficult to play against. This line, he hopes, will allow the Sedins and Kesler lines to be better matched up and not having to go power vs power all the time. The other thing that most outside of Vancouver prob don't understand is the fact that Hodgson's line, and he especially, was not playing a lot in key situations, late in games, especially with the lead. I heard a stat today on the radio that said Hodgson's line has started in the offensive zone, 75% of the time. THAT, is a line that the coach doesn't trust moving forward towards the playoffs! So, while he provided some scoring depth, his value at this point in his career as far as the playoffs go, may not have been as high as most of us think? At the end of the day (yesterday), Gillis thinks he's got a better positioned team for the long playoff battle he hopes his team faces again this year and ironically, that has more to do with the aquisition of Pahlsson, than it does Kassian!
The only way Hodgson could have stuck around moving forward would be if he managed to bump Kesler to the wing, which is possible, but at this point, unlikely. |
|
|
