CrippledCanuck Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 http://www.faceoff.com/hockey/teams/vancouver-canucks/Slamming+Hodgson+Gillis+sour+parting+unwise/6545201/story.html We love name-calling as much as the next reporter or nine-year-old, although, to be honest, people in Grade 3 generally are above that kind of thing these days. While it was amusing to read Gary Roberts, both the Hans and the Franz of hockey conditioning, call Mike Gillis a moron nearly a week after the Vancouver general manager was brutally critical of ex-Canuck Cody Hodgson, the snickering it caused further clouds the issue at the root of the player's February trade: Hodgson didn't want to play here. 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. But, so too, should Roberts, the fitness freak who not only trains Hodgson during the summer but was hired two years ago by the Dallas Stars as a player-development consultant. Roberts correctly pointed out for the Buffalo News that the Canucks' failure to properly diagnose a back injury suffered by Hodgson while lifting weights three summers ago caused his client's "issues." So what about the last two seasons, when Hodgson's back was fine? The bottom line is Hodgson and his camp made it clear he was unhappy playing behind centres Ryan Kesler and Hen-rik Sedin, so the Canucks made what they felt was the best deal they could and traded Hodgson for Zack Kassian before the relationship with Gillis' first draft pick deteriorated further. It seems Gillis' fault with Hodgson was in selecting him 10th overall in 2008, given the GM's stated ideals about character and leadership. His harsh remarks last week were probably a reflection of Gillis' exasperation with the theory that jettisoning Hodgson contributed to the Canucks' first-round playoff exit. Hodgson contributed only three goals, eight points and a minus-seven rating in 20 games after his trade, despite averaging 17: 16 of ice time for a Sabres team that went 12-5-3 down the stretch. Including his final 13 games as a Canuck, Hodgson managed only five goals and 11 points in his final 33 games. So, naturally, he would have outplayed Anze Kopitar, Mike Richards or Jarret Stoll head-to-head in the Canucks' playoff series against the Los Angeles Kings. Gillis was so concerned about Hodgson's defensive liabilities he traded for veteran Samuel Pahlsson before he made the deal for Kassian. Pahlsson would have been the third-line centre the rest of the way even had the Sabres not taken Hodgson. AND ANOTHER THING: The statistical argument for Hodgson making a difference seems to be the same kind of wonky anti-global-warming-science that some people use to make the case for firing Canucks coach Alain Vigneault, whose team's 228 points this season and last included 105 wins - five more than the Pitts-burgh Penguins and at least 10 more than any other NHL team. But, aha, the Canucks play in the dismal Northwest Division so their performance and back-to-back Presidents' Trophies don't count. Of course, Vancouver still went 11-6-3 against the fierce Central Division and 11-5-4 against the Pacific. By the way, did anyone cut the Canucks slack for their record in the first half of last decade when the North-west was probably the toughest division in the National Hockey League? You play the schedule you have and the Canucks have handled theirs better than any team the last two years. If managing-owner Francesco Aquilini thinks he can make the Canucks better by dumping the most successful coach in franchise history, fire away. But there are only a handful of coaches in Vigneault's class and, oddly, they all have jobs. Of course, maybe Aquilini has someone like Wayne Gretzky standing by to do for the Canucks what he did for the Phoenix Coyotes. NO VIGNEAULT, NO GIL-LIS?: The summit between Gillis and the Aquilini family apparently won't happen until at least next week. The longer the owners delay meeting with the GM, the more likely it seems they're planning a shakeup. And the more I think about Gillis' unequivocal support of Vigneault, the more I believe the Aquilinis will have to find themselves a new general man-ager if they ask Gillis to fire his coach. Gillis was named the NHL's top GM last season, when Vigneault was nominated a third time for the Jack Adams Award - the coach-of-the-year trophy he won in 2007. THE LUONGO LIST: While Vigneault holidays and Gillis waits, the goaltending dilemma involving Roberto Luongo creaks along. Everybody's projected trade list includes the Toronto Maple Leafs, Chicago Black-hawks, Florida Panthers and Tampa Bay Lightning. Luongo and Gillis are expected to talk this week. Chances are the Canucks, no matter who's running them, will eventually have to take back someone else's problem contract to shed the final 10 years of Luongo's deal. That may exclude the Panthers from the mix because Gillis already has Keith Ballard's $4.2-mil-lion salary and David Booth's $4.25 million. imacintyre@vancouversun.com Twitter.com/imacvansun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesman60 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islandboss Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kacholu Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Yes to replace AV And no to replacing MG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jyip Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliboy Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 It is an absolute assumption, and utter bull, to say that CoHo would not have helped us in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 It is an absolute assumption, and utter bull, to say that CoHo would not have helped us in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeltaSwede Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Keep them both. This team does not need a shake up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 It is an absolute assumption, and utter bull, to say that CoHo would not have helped us in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laoag Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 coach and GM should stay for one more year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliboy Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edlerberry Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooBie604 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrippledCanuck Posted May 1, 2012 Author Share Posted May 1, 2012 It is an absolute assumption, and utter bull, to say that CoHo would not have helped us in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliboy Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.