SimplyHockey Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 So in light of the Kassian vs Foligno topic, and the continued ZOMGZ Y HODGSON!??!? sentiment around here, I thought some of you might want to read this recent PITB article that might help you rethink what happened on trade deadline day. Might also bring some optimism to your view on the Canucks' post-season. (Full article is here) Basically, what I think you should all take from that article is to look at the trades from that day in a different perspective. A lot of people have been fuming about the Kassian trade, the primary reason (other than CoHo fandom) being that we've thrown away a currently contributing player for a future project that might not even work out! I know, I had similar feelings. But, as has been stated time and time again, Pahlsson is Hodgson's replacement. Not Kassian. I'll run that by you one more time. Pahlsson...is Hodgson's replacement. And though Hodgson might turn out to be a star, the Canucks as an organization are focussed on the now. And Pahlsson is a vast improvement; he's been a godsend for this team. Hodgson does have 8 points with Buffalo compared to Pahlsson's 5 with Vancouver. However, Cody is a massive defensive liability and would be a liability in the playoffs. Some evidence from PITB illustrates it: "Since arriving in Buffalo 18 games ago, Hodgson has been on the ice for 15 Buffalo goals. However, he’s been on the ice for 18 of the Sabres’ 44 goals against. That’s 41% of them. Worse, the Sabres have been outscored 13 to 7 at even-strength with Hodgson on the ice...the Sabres control 44.6% of Fenwick events when he’s on the ice, which is a fancy way of saying the opposition has the puck a lot." By comparison, here are Pahlsson's stats: "Since the trade, Pahlsson has been on the ice for the same amount of goals as Hodgson at even-strength: 7. However, rather than watch the red light go on 13 times, Pahlsson has only been on the ice for 5 even-strength goals against. Furthermore, Pahlsson is boasting a Fenwick rating of exactly 50%, and this is more impressive than it sounds: consider that Pahlsson’s line has been playing against top lines and eating up defensive zone starts. Consider Cody's output the past week: with the Sabres' quest to make the playoffs currently hanging in the balance, Buffalo has lost 2 of 3 and nearly 3 of 3, surrendering 14 goals. Hodgson has been on the ice for 9 of them. You can't tell me that's helpful right now.Adjusted for these zone starts, Pahlsson’s Fenwick is actually 58%. In effect, match the Swedish centre up against the best forwards in the league and he’ll win the shift more often than not." Basically, his scoring doesn't lag far behind, but his defence is supremely better (and we all know the old adage, don't we?) Though it isn't the postseason quite yet, the Sabres have been fighting for their playoff hopes for quite a while now, and in these games, there's an undoubtable playoff atmosphere. And this is just further evidence to illustrate that yes, Cody would be a liability in the playoffs. "Consider Cody's output the past week: with the Sabres' quest to make the playoffs currently hanging in the balance, Buffalo has lost 2 of 3 and nearly 3 of 3, surrendering 14 goals. Hodgson has been on the ice for 9 of them. You can't tell me that's helpful right now." Now a lot of people will begrudgingly admit that Kassian could be a good player in the future, but that Hodgson was more ready now and that we've thrown away current impact players for a power forward project because Boston is in our heads. However, if you combine the Pahlsson and Kassian trades together, you get a whole different view. The 3 Canucks trades involved in that day were Cody Hodgson and Alexander Sulzer to Buffalo for Zack Kassian and Marc-Andre Gragnani, Taylor Ellington and two 4th round picks in 2012 to Columbus for Samuel Pahlsson, and Sebastian Erixon to Anaheim for Andrew Gordon. Essentially, regarding the more 'current impact' players, we traded Cody Hodgson and Alexander Sulzer (who would've simply been defensive depth here) for Samuel Pahlsson. On the 'future considerations' side, we traded ECHLer Taylor Ellington and two 4th round picks for former 1st rounder Zack Kassian and Marc-Andre Gragnani, who was practically a p/g player in the AHL (as a defenceman). Erixon for Gordon is negligible really, though Gordon can fill in as NHL-ready depth. Reviewing the trades of that day from a different perspective, it becomes apparent that MG has actually improved the current Canucks a great amount. Sulzer's unlikely to slot in come spring, and Pahlsson has been a big improvement over Hodgson; this article really illustrates how much more sound Sami's been. Though CoHo has a bright future ahead of him, Taylor Ellington and two 4th rounders (basically peanuts) for two very rare talents in soft-handed power forward Kassian, and puck-moving blue liner Gragnani sounds like a fleecing. Of course only the future will tell, but I like the odds of these two developing more than Ellington and the pair of 4th rounders. Anyways, just thought this was an interesting article and it's really made me look at the trade in a new way. Some might say Buffalo fleeced us in that trade, but if we're looking at the actual day itself, I feel that Gillis has actually improved our team both for the current Cup run, and the future. Got more appreciation for GMMG, and I feel if some of you doubters read this article and post, you might too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hudson bay rules Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Where would Hodgson have fit in, pray tell? In the present and future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Either you have a hard time understanding or you refuse to understand because you're pig headed or just do not understand the business side of hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Aerosex Posted April 5, 2012 Author Share Posted April 5, 2012 Phalsson is a rental and Kassian is a minor leaguer as it stands. Hodgson has a better shot at making a possitive impact both short time and long time than Kassian does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooBie604 Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Phalsson is a rental and Kassian is a minor leaguer as it stands. Hodgson has a better shot at making a possitive impact both short time and long time than Kassian does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uber_pwnzor Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Well, we could have kept Coho while still having Påhlsson... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Aerosex Posted April 5, 2012 Author Share Posted April 5, 2012 Well, we could have kept Coho while still having Påhlsson... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Thing is, we didn't trade Hodgson and Sulzer for Pahlsson. We traded two picks for Pahlsson. 'The trade' didn't involve Pahlsson. It involves Kassian and Gragnani. While we see the overall picture, it at this point is still hard to defend 'the trade', since we gave up two 'current impact' (your assessment) players for zero in return. What kind of move is that for a cup run? Where are you seeing zero in return overall? When you see the overall picture, Pahlsson is the current impact player we are receiving. Sulzer could have an impact, but will likely be depth (in fact, Kassian actually might have more of an immediate impact with Vancouver than Sulzer would have). Hodgson will have an impact, but is that positive or negative? I'm certain that Pahlsson will contribute more to a deep playoff run than Hodgson would. In the immediate future (the 2012 Stanley Cup playoffs), I'd be inclined to say the Canucks improved for a Cup run with Pahlsson over Hodgson. Once again, I emphasize looking at the day on the whole, not just each trade individually. Question: We get Pahlsson and then stop trading. Is that better or worse than what we did on deadline day? Even if Cody Hodgson rides the pine for the entire playoffs, we'll still have our top prospect available to us in the future, AND we'll still have Pahlsson. And how long does Cody want to stay in Vancouver behind Henrik and Kesler, and with Schroeder also breathing down his neck? I'd love to keep him too, but his future is in question...does he even have a future here? Kassian and Gragnani maybe don't have the same potential as our former top prospect, but they do have potential, and what they also have is opportunity. imo. Enter 'individual agendas.' Because Cody's individual agenda is what prompted his trade. Not the gain of Kassian and Gragnani. And esp. not the gain of Pahlsson, who we had before Cody was traded. Of course Hodgson's individual agenda is what prompted the trade. But if you think MG wasn't looking for a defensively responsible 3rd line centre, you're misinformed. I'm sure Gillis recognized the need to cover his holes in the bottom 6. You can prefer to think it's simply a convenient cover story, but regardless of whether the trades were improvisation (for lack of a better word) or not, I still say the Canucks improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Well, we could have kept Coho while still having Påhlsson... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uber_pwnzor Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I thought everybody would've realized by now that Hodgson wanted out of Vancouver and wasn't going to blossom here for a while (and he wasn't going to wait obviously). I'm going to put that in the OP, apparently not everybody's heard of this yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 We traded Cody partly because demoting him to the pressbox during the playoffs would've caused an uproar in this town. That would've been an unwanted distraction. However, teams like Detroit bench and insert young players all the time with no issue. It would seem that while our team has matured, our town has not. Cheers. TOML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puckster Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 After the dust has settled in my mind, ( I was a CoHo fan for sure) Here is the way I rationalize the event : - MG traded for phalson - a checking center, which made CoHo redundent if he wanted the 3rd line to be a checking line. - What we need(ed) is a Power forward, so he traded CoHo for a D upgrade and a future Potential Power forward. (Remember these type of players are rare indeed)! In two years or so when Kassian is up to speed and Jensen breaks in as a Power forward, Canuck Nation will be be Praising MG for his forsight!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooBie604 Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 So the fans complain when Hodgson wasn't getting enough minutes and after we get Pahlsson they would be satisfied with Cody playing even less minutes or riding the pine? He can't play on the fourth line and he can't play wing. Would you think Cody would be happy playing behind three centremen instead of two? They did him a favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uber_pwnzor Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Ok so where would Cody play when Pahlsson is the 3rd line center? I mean everybody wants to win the cup now right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Aerosex Posted April 5, 2012 Author Share Posted April 5, 2012 1. I agree that Kassian and Grags could have some immediate impact, but that's not what was said. Hodgson's point production for his icetime was decent for us. That is often overlooked while defending the trade. He wasn't Pahlsson-esque defensively, no. But neither is Kassian or Gragnani. You can't label it 'the trade' and then treat 'the trade' as the day in whole, imo. It's one or the other. It's fine to say the day as a whole was good. I'd agree. But 'the trade'? Meh. I'm getting the sense I mixed it up with my terminology. I'm trying to make people stop viewing just 'the trade', and look at the day. If I'm labelling things wrong, apologies. And yes, Hodgson's production was fantastic, but one can't forget how sheltered his minutes were. And his defensive deficiencies just can't be overlooked either (Kassian, IMO, is more responsible defensively...Gragnani likely won't be playing in the playoffs). 2. I agree fully that Hodgson's future was in doubt. But did we have to trade him at the deadline? No. Who knows... Maybe we could use him if Kesler or Henrik go down. Kassian and Gragnani aren't centres. This is true. But I'm not too worried about Henrik going down, he's very durable. Kesler getting injured could be bothersome, but I think the Canucks could get along fine as they already have incredible depth at centre and a solid supporting cast on the wings. But with Hodgson's apparent impatience kind of being tossed in the light, it also throws some questions about his character. I'm not one to slander, but you never know. Does his ego suffer from being put in the press box and does it reflect on the ice? And can you imagine the controversy it'd cause across the province, having our golden boy a healthy scratch? Everybody demanded he get more minutes, what happens when Pahlsson usurps his spot? 3. So, no answer for the question of what if we stopped trading after we got Pahlsson? Better or worse? Immediately? Can't say. Even if Hodgson stays, does he play? Where does he fit in? For the future, it's also impossible to say. Who do we get in return for CoHo in the off-season, especially if he doesn't play in the playoffs? While it's moot, it's also cloudy. imo You cannot have enough depth at center. Adding Pahlsson could've afforded Hodgson even easier icetime for him to light up an opposition. Or we could've shelved Hodgson. Whatever. Depth at centre certainly isn't an issue for the Canucks. Toughness and size was. It seems that at this point you just have to trust in Gillis. I still like the day as a whole. Mainly because the headache that Hodgson presented this hockey fanbase and media center is now gone. Cheers. TOML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 On the second line, and on our second PP unit... I'm 100% sure that he'd do better than Raymond... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onions Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 okay, people who think it was CoHo for Kassian, let me ask you this. If we didn't get Pahlsson, do you think MG will have done that trade with Buffalo? I think it was because we got Pahlsson that MG was able to put CoHo on the trading table. And remember, we got Pahlsson first before we traded Coho in case some of you suffer from memory loss. -.-' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uber_pwnzor Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 He cant play wing and doesnt have the speed to play with Kesler and Booth, they allready tried this and it didnt work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamero89 Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Playoffs are a different monster. I think Kassasian is better suited for them. Coho maybe a better natural goal scorer, but Kas can hit, play "D" and maybe get one or two big goals this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauii Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 So your'e saying we got Pahlsson aka his replacement for only draft pics and still lost Coho in the process??? The thing with Coho...he's got vision, skill, hockey smarts and he's clutch. You cant teach that. You either have it or you don't, and unfortunately not too many people do. He's showing more skill as a rookie then Sedins, Kesler, hence, candidate for rookie of the year..is Kassian in that mix? Imagine the potential when he's fully developed training under Sedins and Kesler, the next generation. Why would anyone trade a difference maker to the team...what team would do that, especially someone that's clutch going into the playoffs. Especially someone who wins MVP titles or should have won the MVP title in league tournaments. He thrives in that environment. How can he be useful to us in the playoffs? When our offense or pp is stale...you need goals to win which we had trouble doing in our last playoff run. That's what I'd be addressing and looking at. He and Kesler can interchange centre with Booth in the wing...you got gritty, shooters and a playmaker. Heck they can all potentially score...how do you check that...and that's the 2nd line! With the first line as two Art Ross recipients as line mates. What coach would love that line up! And you still have your checking line. I still think we could have kept him granted he'll be longterm...anyone who says he wanted out, I doubt...otherwise why would he be calling Rogers Arena/Vancouver home. Still not happy, especially knowing that we could have gotten the much needed checking line without losing talent...in terms of toughness and size anyone can fit in the Sedin line and still produce...think Gino and Pavel...Pavel turned him into a goal scorer not just a tough guy and in turn protected Pavel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.