Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CrippledCanuck

Interesting Article On Hodgson, Playoffs

54 posts in this topic

Wow...Ian MacIntryre out did himself on this one. I have to agree though....good coach and great GM....the best we have ever had.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes most successful Gm and coach,but is there other ones out there that would understand this team better?

There's still something they are missing in motivating and getting the most out of the players under stress.In the playoffs they almost seem like a race horse that's being constantly reined in.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article ... I would have to disagree with some of the conclusions though. GM of the year ... Coach of the year do not win you Stanley Cups I'm afraid. Vancouver is a big market team in an area that has huge support. The Canucks compete well mainly because they are able to spend money wisely not only on talented players (decent 1st & 2nd line and great depth, role, support players) but also on tons and tons of off ice support (team doctors, trainers, scouts, assitant coaches, skills development, conditioning ...)

Most teams (large or small market) can only dream of having the type of (non player salary) budget that Canucks have.

So to say that the canucks GM & Coach are the "best" ... well you can't begin to have that discussion unless you also compare the size of their (non player salary) budgets to other teams.

I would venture to guess that the Aquilinis are crunching their numbers and wondering if they have the best bang for their buck in GM & Coach. A first round exit translates to over $40m in lost revenues in gate receipts, concessions and merchandise.

My point is this: given the size of the Canucks non player salary budget (I don't know the figure, but was told by someone within the canucks organization that ought to know - it is large by comparison to the vast majority of other NHL teams), we expect to be in at least the 2nd and maybe even the 3rd round for a number of years. To exit in the 1st round ... is disappointing and a failure to the Aguilinis. And to forego $40m in revenues is a very bitter pill for Aguilinis to swallow. Afterall, the Canucks are a "for profit" enterprise.

I guess we'll see a new logo/jersey next year to make up for the lost revenues. Can we at least have a new coach to go with that?

Now for truly inspiring GM's & Coaches this year ... you might want to look at St Louis, Nashville, or even Phoenix (how ironic since they are league owned). Each of those teams struggled to make the $49m salary cap floor; let alone have many pennies to rub together for support team(s) of doctors, trainers, development, they are all in the 2nd round and generating lots of interest and money for their owners.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't just the Canucks that misdiagnosed Cody's back. When he left he went home to his own doctor. Then his junior teams medical staff. And finally to a specialist in the US. Guess what? They all came up with the same diagnosis. Something that's seems to get completely ignored by everybody.

Now I don't know what qualifications Roberts has to diagnose a torn muscle but that following spring, when Cody returned to Vancouver, the Province reported that it was the Canucks medical staff that discovered the torn muscle. Which was missed by doctor after doctor due to the more obvious bulging disc. I'm not buying that Roberts has more medical knowledge than a boatload of medical doctors that includes a highly regarded US specialist. He may well have suggested they look further, or that there may be something else, but I trouble believing he made the actual diagnosis that several actual doctors had missed.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hodgson helping now... Kassian helping now... Neither happens. We get that. But that doesn't apply to the overall worth of the trade, since both players will be good in the future. Hopefully. Focusing on our playoff loss and how Hodgson wouldn't have helped anyway doesn't change the fact that we still made a trade that can possibly look very bad (or good) in the future.

Heh. Gillis would be the first gm to sacrifice himself for his coach.

Meanwhile, the Luongo contract (and potential take-back) isn't even that big a problem. It's time for the writers here as well to stop dwelling on cap issues. You think the Rangers care about spending millions on Redden in the minors? They are poised to go all the way now. The cap is so meaningless to other teams like the Rangers and Flyers, and yet we dwell on it here like it's the end of days. Who cares? We can take all the bad contracts in the world and be rid of them just like those other teams if we so desire.

The real issue has and always will be getting good value out of your young players, so you can afford to be rid of those bad deals on the ice. Cheers.

TOML

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an absolute assumption, and utter bull, to say that CoHo would not have helped us in the playoffs.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article ... I would have to disagree with some of the conclusions though. GM of the year ... Coach of the year do not win you Stanley Cups I'm afraid. Vancouver is a big market team in an area that has huge support. The Canucks compete well mainly because they are able to spend money wisely not only on talented players (decent 1st & 2nd line and great depth, role, support players) but also on tons and tons of off ice support (team doctors, trainers, scouts, assitant coaches, skills development, conditioning ...)

Most teams (large or small market) can only dream of having the type of (non player salary) budget that Canucks have.

So to say that the canucks GM & Coach are the "best" ... well you can't begin to have that discussion unless you also compare the size of their (non player salary) budgets to other teams.

I would venture to guess that the Aquilinis are crunching their numbers and wondering if they have the best bang for their buck in GM & Coach. A first round exit translates to over $40m in lost revenues in gate receipts, concessions and merchandise.

My point is this: given the size of the Canucks non player salary budget (I don't know the exact figure, but was told by someone that ought to know - it is huge by comparison to many other teams), we expect to be in the 2nd and at least the 3rd round for a number of years. To exit in the 1st round ... is disappointing and a failure. And to forego $40m in revenues is a very bitter pill for Aguilinis to swallow.

I guess we'll see a new logo/jersey next year to make up for the lost revenues. Can we at least have a new coach to go with that?

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mg wouldn't sacrifice himself for his coach, since av would still be fired, even if mg steps down, or is fired himself. if the Aquilini's want av gone, he's gone, simple as that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an absolute assumption, and utter bull, to say that CoHo would not have helped us in the playoffs.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an absolute assumption, and utter bull, to say that CoHo would not have helped us in the playoffs.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

coach and GM should stay for one more year.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder..............what exactly did he do in Buffalo on 15-20 mins? He lacks speed and grit, why would he have made much, if any difference?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like most of the points he makes.

Yeah, we've done enough deals with Florida, and taken on enough salary from them. They also have a goalie they're high on so I don't see us dealing there.

I cannot imagine that Gillis leaves his job because of a forced coaching change, but I also don't see a forced coaching change.

Didn't realize the Canucks had 228 points this year. One hell of an 82 game schedule!

the same kind of wonky anti-global-warming-science

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely.Gillis,as a lawyer,ex player's agent and especially as the face of the Canucks franchise should never have thrown Cody:It is not all about a good or bad trade.It is about form and his was not in any way acceptable:

Given Gillis' success at enhancing the work environment and making the Canucks one of the most desirable teams for whom to play - to the point that every core player has accepted less than market value to stay in Vancouver - the GM should have known better than to voluntarily divulge that Hodgson was so high-maintenance that Gillis "spent more time on Cody's issues than every other player on our team combined over the last three years."

It's bad form to speak that way of the dead or the departed. Gillis should know better.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also absolute assumption, and utter bull to say CoHo would have helped us because no one knows how situations could have played out. However, history is the only basis we have in this and history showed he did awful when it came to the play offs. However, that is an unfair assumption because he was younger and less developed. Yet people seem to bash Kassian on the same basis.

No one knows how things would have played out but I'm so sick of everyone crying about the past and using it to hate on a player in the present. CoHo is gone, move on.

Many Canuck fans act like the kid who got dumped by his girlfriend and so he takes it out on his current girlfriend.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an absolute assumption, and utter bull, to say that CoHo would not have helped us in the playoffs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an absolute assumption, and utter bull, to say that Coho would have helped us in the playoffs. He really helped us in the previous 33games oh wait he went pointless before he was traded and only managed 8pts and -7 in 20gp and icetime went up to 17minutes and change on average. His shot% went down, while sulzer got 8pts a +2 in 15gp. From those stats looks like sulzer could hav helped us more.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.