bd71 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Good ???? god. Stop with the exagerations. The Sabres are fighting for a playoffs spot. Not contending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I'd take the Sabres over the Canucks without a Sedin right now. They way they have been playing is impressive and outside of Pittsburgh the East is wide open. Miller stays hot and the Sabres could easily go on a long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCammer Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I'd take the Sabres over the Canucks without a Sedin right now. They way they have been playing is impressive and outside of Pittsburgh the East is wide open. Miller stays hot and the Sabres could easily go on a long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uber_pwnzor Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Pre-Gillis drafting was mostly bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Light Racicot Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Prospect camp, "Backs fine, feels great." Main camp: "No problems I feel great" Preseason: "Nope, back isn't bothering me at all." Cut from team: "Oh my back. I need to see my doctor." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yes we can nucks Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Feel free to jump ship and cheer for Buffalo. They've won four straight and you're trumpeting them as contenders in the East. It's more likely they'll be golfing in three weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suolucidir Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I agree with the 'draft the best available player' theory. I don't agree with the theories being put out that Cody was a cancer and that he was disruptive to the team as there is nothing but speculation here on the subject. I also do not agree with the way in which Cody was traded in this day and age of instant communication. Additionally,Gillis had every option to explain the trade and end any speculation instantly but he chose to say nothing and then chose to put the onus of responsibility on Cody,a rookie. Stating Cody lied or was some type of villain is irresponsible ,at best. Yes,the Canucks had every right to trade him and it appears it may end up as a fair trade,in time. The issue to me is the Canucks .org state they are this progressive team with unique,'out of the box' incentives with programs/facilities/culture to attract players into this market and yet the manner in which Cody was dealt is not keeping with the front they are promoting. It was lacking accountability and class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suolucidir Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Öhlund, Sedins, Kesler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dellins Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Well gosh, I thought Buffalo was playing well now because they're trying to get the last playoff spot in the east. Of course it must be because they acquired Hodgson that they're playing well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suolucidir Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Well gosh, I thought Buffalo was playing well now because they're trying to get the last playoff spot in the east. Of course it must be because they acquired Hodgson that they're playing well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 The more interesting question to me is, "Why didn't we trade Cody Hodgson for a proven player?" The fact that Gillis didn't ante up Hodgson for a expensive rental player at the deadline given our window of opportunity here is unusual. The fact that he didn't acquire that player says one of two things: Either that player was out of reach, even with Hodgson thrown in; or that Gillis isn't 100% sold on this being the year to make such a move. What i don't like about the Hodgson trade is that any plan involving Hodgson's rise to stardom within his entry deal for us has now vaporized. Now while those plans may have never come to fruition, due to Hodgson being slightly injury-prone and not fleet of foot, the question is what the hell is the plan now? Certainly it doesn't involve players on entry deals. And perhaps that's fine for a time in which cap ceilings are pretty damn high anyway. Another thing i don't like about the Hodgson trade is the attention it has gotten. As soon as he was traded, he was annointed the next biggest thing since Fabian Brunnstrom. Prior, he was a ho-hum pseudo offensive threat going through a rookie late-season slump. Was he going to be a difference-maker in the playoffs? Meh. I like what Kassian brings to the table a bit more for those kinda games. Even though it's a bit early to label him a saviour as well. I equate the Hodgson trade to a lesser Kessel trade. Kessel wanted to be the go-to guy. Boston wanted to win. Sometimes things don't mesh well. On that note, Hodgson didn't just want more icetime here. He wanted THE icetime. Meaning Henrik's, not Kesler's. ie. The cushy offensive zone starts that get you the most easy points against the easiest competition. This is what gets guys like Stamkos the points and it's what got Henrik an Art Ross and Hart. However, Hodgson is not Stamkos nor Henrik and he likely never will be comparable. What i like about the Hodgson trade is that he filled two team needs while getting rid of a potential distraction. I for one won't miss the talk about how Hodgson is being screwed here. But i won't like all the game-to-game of Hodgson's progress in Buffalo. 'Hey, how about that Grabner?' Cheers. TOML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Gosh is someone grumpy? The view that Hodgson had captain material in him was widely noted. Your a moderator, supposed to be enforcing rules. Here your chastising someone for having an opinion. Personally, I think Burrows (if we managed to re-sign him) is the lead by example, great teammate (remember his support of Luc Bourdon, relationship with our current guys...), do anything to win guy & would be our best choice as Captain. He adds the Bobby Clarke stick up for himself and the team characteristic to the type of leadership we get from Hank. But that not withstanding, Hodgson kept a great attitude despite benchings, made class A efforts to better himself in the pre-season, accepted and was making a name for himself in the role he was given... To quote AV just a few weeks before the trade; "here is a young man who is starting to put it together, and is doing the things we need him to to help the team win." Yeah, its premature to nominate him for captain at that point. But, It was only after the trade, and the backlash, that curiously rumours began to surface. And now people who are disappointed in the trade are roundly told to "get over it," and that we are not loyal fans. You did not say this, but your tone clearly does? And who does pick the captain? No the fans do not directly. But fan reactions are valid postings. I think you should be disappointed with yourself as a moderator for your reaction. As to the trade, Kass has yet to show he is worth giving up on a prospect with as much potential as Hodgson. It is most curious because he is not really prime time, NHL ready. That's the type of talent typically traded for by contenders. As a fan, I obviously still hope we win, and Kass does well; but feel wholly justified in questioning the move. The future captain of this team according to WHO, exactly? You? Fans? Here's a scoop........neither you or the fans of this team pick any captains, future or otherwise. A lot of people here are guilty of putting the horse before the Cody cart........and by the way, capitalizing the beginning of your sentences & player names, proper punctuation etc., would make your drivel here a tad more readable....... Not to mention that this could have gone in any of the Cody threads that are already in existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Naslund Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 And Cody's linemates were better than Kesler's.. no? Pretty easy to have a better +/- if your linemates are better than another's. How many of Cody's "+'s" were on the power play.. when "someone else" scored? And if you think Gillis traded for "right here, right now...".. you need to give your head a shake. It was a trade for "now.. AND the future". Gillis has said all along that was his M.O. He's never been a one shot GM. And personally.. I welcome that. We were good enough WITHOUT Cody to get the President's Trophy last year, and we're STILL good enough to win the Cup WITHOUT Cody "this" year. You make it sound like all we had were Cody... and a big bag of extra parts. Cody was a winer.. we don't need winers. That includes all you "WHY did we trade Cody?" winers. Life goes on... deal with it. And... if Cody truly is your God and Saviour... then maybe you're just cheering for the wrong team? Maybe you should just join BuffaloSabresDotCom....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vancan3322 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Trade deadline was weeks ago get over it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 He was cleared by the Canuck medical staff to play in that camp. He was misdiagnosed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckNORRIS4Cup Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Canucks vs Buffalo Stanley Cup Finals! Game 7 Canucks can't seem to score again, because they traded away their rookie who could help them score, guess who scores for Buffalo Cody Hodgson! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckNORRIS4Cup Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Sure. Why would the medical staff, the coach or the GM bother listening to what the player is saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 As to the trade, Kass has yet to show he is worth giving up on a prospect with as much potential as Hodgson. It is most curious because he is not really prime time, NHL ready. That's the type of talent typically traded for by contenders. As a fan, I obviously still hope we win, and Kass does well; but feel wholly justified in questioning the move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Yes MG "gave up" on a guy being talked about as a possible rookie of the year nominee. Trading a player does not automatically translate into "giving up" on them. Gillis didn't give up on Grabner. Grabner had run out of time and the odds of him winning a spot was somewhere in the slim to none area. It was move him or risk losing him for nothing. Nor did he give up on Hodgson. He traded a prospect who was unhappy with his ice time for another prospect who is a year younger and plus a D upgrade. He moved a player that has a Selke winner and an Art Ross winner ahead of him for a young power forward. In other words, he traded something we didn't really need for the near future for something we do need. That's not "giving up". It's simply asset management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Sure. Why would the medical staff, the coach or the GM bother listening to what the player is saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.