Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Zack Kassian: A Little Patience Required


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
82 replies to this topic

#61 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,063 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 14 July 2012 - 03:21 PM

So,Ellington and two fourth rounders for Pahlsson.


Two fourth rounders gone.


Ellington is gone.


Pahlsson is gone.


Sulzer is long gone.


Gragnani is gone.


Hodgson is long gone.

Essentially,seven players were discarded to secure Kassian and shore up Hodgson's positional loss for the playoff run.


Hmm, seven guys discarded to secure Kassian, you say? Interesting.

I believe the Canucks still got the better of the deal.

regards,
G.

Edited by Gollumpus, 14 July 2012 - 10:51 PM.

Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#62 bossram

bossram

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,943 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 10

Posted 14 July 2012 - 03:42 PM

I think Kassian will pan out. But we're going to have to be patient and wait until he's 23/24 years old before we see him break out. I do think he can be a 55+ point powerforward. He has hands, toughness and the ability to steamroll players if he wants to. He just needs some time to put it together.

I'd be happy with around 10 goals from him on the 4th line this season while getting bumped up the depth chart once in a while. Ideally he should be in the AHL developing into a powerforward, but I think Gillis will want him in the lineup and use his toughness.
What is the deal with Mike Gillis, it always seems like he's sweating...

#63 nucksovereverything

nucksovereverything

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Joined: 19-October 11

Posted 14 July 2012 - 03:57 PM

hate how people say kassian sucks or hes useless. People who say that just don't really know hockey.

#64 Rypien.4.Ever

Rypien.4.Ever

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 11

Posted 14 July 2012 - 03:58 PM

Kassian has the potential to be the next Lucic. MG made the right call in the deal, Kass just needs a few years to develop.

God I hope he is nothing like Lucic, If Kassian can play more of a Evander Kane justice dealer I'd be ecstatic.
The twins will get traded for this pick. You can quote me .

-Some idiot named Shredder talking about Connor McDavid.

#65 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,086 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 14 July 2012 - 06:11 PM

I think him playing on the third line this year would be perfect for his development. He was pretty much a ppg when he played in the AHL, he needs to get used to the speed and strength of NHL players so he can dominate physically like he did in junior. I'm sure he'll be in much better shape this season also.

m97o1w.jpg

Credit to Parise11


#66 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,828 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 14 July 2012 - 06:30 PM

Hmm, seven guys discarded to secure Kassian, you say? Interesting.

I still believe the Canucks got the better of the deal.


No ,what I said,Regards G. is:

Essentially,seven players were discarded to secure Kassian AND shore up Hodgson's positional loss for the playoff run.

#67 komodo1970

komodo1970

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 11

Posted 14 July 2012 - 06:31 PM

I think Kassian is a good pick up. He is big, strong and aggressive. He did make a few nice plays that really did show his potential. The thing I liked the most was his patience with the puck. He wasn't affraid to hold onto it for that extra split second in order for someone to get open. Then his pass was crisp and on the tape. I think a full training camp is exactly what he needs. A chance to get familiar with our team and our system without the pressure to perform right away. I feel that within the next season or two he is going to be an important part of this team and no one will be missing Hodgeson.

#68 John.Tallhouse

John.Tallhouse

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,577 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 14 July 2012 - 06:31 PM

Prove Yourself!
Posted Image

#69 hudson bay rules

hudson bay rules

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,386 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 10

Posted 14 July 2012 - 06:46 PM

I don't recall him saying he'd make an immediate impact. He did say Kassian had a ways to go in development though and that he'd help "in different ways".



Sorry, my copy and paste doesn't like this forum.


try

video.canucks.nhl.com./videocenter/console?id=160765

look at 1:00 minute in.
I love rock and roll, just put another dime in the juice box baby.

#70 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 76,215 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 14 July 2012 - 06:46 PM

I agree. PATIENCE!

307mg00.jpg


#71 DreamHerO

DreamHerO

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 10

Posted 14 July 2012 - 07:10 PM

Maybe he made the trade while thinking about the future more so than the season at hand. Either or, I liked Kassian before the trade and was happy when we acquired him.

During his interview about Kassian's trade i'm pretty sure he said that Kassian would've helped last seasons playoffs chances more.
Posted Image

#72 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,828 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 14 July 2012 - 07:14 PM

I don't recall him saying he'd make an immediate impact. He did say Kassian had a ways to go in development though and that he'd help "in different ways".


"....he is a NHL player NOW who is going to help us in a lot of different ways.
We wanted to get as fast and as big as we could going into these playoffs and we'll see how we did." GM MG

Read more: http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz20dQBGA48

#73 canuck_trevor16

canuck_trevor16

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,657 posts
  • Joined: 15-January 07

Posted 14 July 2012 - 07:32 PM

you can argue that Kassasin is similar to that of Bobby Ryan.........Bobby Ryan was the 2nd OVERALL pick and he didnt come into the league into age 23.......I say that Kassasin would be around the same time before he finally emerge as a impact player

One day some of us will look back on the year and look at the chicago, and most of us will realize that it was a small bump in the road to the cup


WIN THE CUP FOR SALO CAMPAIGN

#74 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,828 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 14 July 2012 - 07:35 PM

Plenty that still don't get it. I have plenty of very knowledgeable friends who have never played any organized hockey. I also have friends that have played that really miss the boat. Those of us that have played should have a better understanding but it's simply not the case. Thus I hate it when people play the "have you ever played" card as it really doesn't matter.


To illustrate how ridiculous you appear let me put it to you in layman's terms:
I am a stonemason.
When people critique my work it is more than evidently apparent within seconds whether the person with said opinion have ever mixed even one batch of cement in their lives.
When people pretend to know what they are talking about and go on and on about something but have no clue whatsoever it is initially entertaining and then annoying and finally blatantly obvious that a lot of 'experts' are simply ignorant and obnoxious with their opinionated self-importance.
You might think you are knowledgeable and important but really,you just end up looking like a pompous goof.

Edited by nuck nit, 14 July 2012 - 07:54 PM.


#75 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,359 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 14 July 2012 - 07:37 PM

CoHo would not have put us over the hump in the playoffs, we were missing a power forward and now we have one.
Anyone can make a prediction and say this or that may have happened, but its clear that CoHo was not happy here, at least that is the impression I took from the Gillis interview after he was traded.
For all we know Buffalo had another pending deal with another club for Zack and Gillis decided to pull the trigger, we now have this big power forward who is still going to develop and maybe turn into a force for the club.


We obviously know that now. But at the time nobody had a clue how we would fair and Gillis is suppose to construct the best team possible with what he has. So trading him, a cry baby, or just his dad, or both, for an AHL player is the exact opposite of putting together the best team possible. Gillis could have done precisely that when the trading window was open again after the playoffs. I look forward to the future with Zack on this team, but at the time, it was not a logical choice.

Edited by Tortorella's Rant, 14 July 2012 - 07:38 PM.

Posted Image

#76 Edler's Mind Tricks

Edler's Mind Tricks

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,892 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 10

Posted 14 July 2012 - 08:13 PM

Here is another amazing piece on him by Angus
http://forum.canucks...ed/page__st__60

Edited by Edler's Mind Tricks, 15 July 2012 - 12:14 AM.

Hockey Management Intern for UBC Thunderbirds.
Associate Editor for Dobber Sports Network.
Designing a UBC Hockey Management Degree.


#77 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,063 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 14 July 2012 - 10:51 PM

No ,what I said,Regards G. is:

Essentially,seven players were discarded to secure Kassian AND shore up Hodgson's positional loss for the playoff run.


Yeah. The Canucks still came out ahead.

regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#78 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 14 July 2012 - 10:57 PM

I think Cody is a good young player but I think the Canucks came out ahead as well.
Posted Image

#79 gumshoe242

gumshoe242

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Joined: 27-March 06

Posted 14 July 2012 - 10:59 PM

Doan would be a perfect mentor for Kassian. Hope like hell he signs here.


If it's true that Doan has been offered $30 million over 4 years, then we will not be seeing him in a Vancouver uniform. Too bad.... it would have been awesome!

#80 ChaosCanucks

ChaosCanucks

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 04

Posted 15 July 2012 - 12:23 AM

I'm not sure I can agree to this article. While Hodgson was playing on the third line, his skill and intelligence was quite apparent to pretty much every fan and sport0 analyst, in his rookie season he scored 41 pts and anchored our 2nd Powerplay for near half a season. Here we can instantly see that Hodgson is 1. likely a perennial 20+goal scorer 2. offensive potential is self-evident 3. makes his linemates better.

In the trade, it has pretty much boiled down to Kassian for Hodgson, since the other parts were less significant or even completely discarded. (MAG)

The point here is, we have a short window of opportunity, since last year, to win a cup with this core. Luongo, Sedins, Bieksa, Burrows, Malholtra, etc. are all past their 30s, we have a few contracts in Hansen, Edler, Burrows, (Hodgson), (Schneider) that were solid bargains and are likely facing significant raises that may displace them in our future, therefore our aim should have been to WIN NOW.
That's the main argument against Hodgson trade back then, and still is today. Hodgson was contributing significantly to our team and overall play, and was gaining prominence in our offense when he was traded, whereas Kassian did not contribute to our offense nor did he make us "tougher" to play against. In that sense, MG lost the trade (for that year). While both players are young and still have bright futures, our team is getting older, and other teams with youth are beginning to develop their systems and strengths (i.e. Oilers, Panthers, Blackhawks, Bruins, Senators, etc.)
We are now still without a cup, but now we face significant obstacles in our offensive front - it was obvious last year was not the same dominance as the year before, where we dominated near every major team statistic. During the playoffs we struggled mightily once again offensively, (albeit to a better team in retrospect).
The arguments put forth in the article attempts to dissuade naysayers that Kassian will develop to be a 20-30goal scorer in due time - the examples circled around four years. Unfortunately for our team, we don't appear to have four years.
The reality of this team, this core, is that our window is closer to 2 years left. If winning the Cup is our goal, then this trade according to the article's argument means we've lost out on the trade.


The only "working" argument for trading Hodgson away was if his party really did demand either a trade or unreasonable demands for ice time that was unwarranted. In that case, then he may have been a lockerroom distraction or a significant obstacle come off season or contract time, then trading him when his external value is high but internal value low means we make the best of a bad situation. While most reports regarding this has been speculative, my opinion is that something along the suggested lines happened and set off warning flags for Mike Gillis.

Further, ad hominem attacks against critics is not a sound argument... suggesting that most critics of kassian/MG are teens living in their parent's basements (really, how many teenagers live in the basements of their own homes?) Teens are expected to be still living with their parents... anyhow...
The fundamental argument of how Sedins, Burrows, Kesler, Edler, Hansen etc. took many years to develop to what they are now is moot, considering Hodgson is NOT Kassin, and are NOT any of those players mentioned. Completely different backgrounds and skillsets make their comparisons as useful as if I compared Kassian's lack of production against Milan Lucic's (8-19-27 89PIM) rookie season, or maybe to Jeff Skinner's (31-32-63 46PIM) or maybe to Ovechkin's (52-54-106 52PIM)...
What I'm trying to illustrate is that Kassian is not comparable to any of those players listed above. Sedins were known as playmakers with potential but deficient in skating, Kesler was a speedy grinding forward, Hansen was a speedy grinder, Edler was a defensive defenceman. (different position to boot.)
Kassian was described as a top power-forward prospect, therefore if he cannot jump right into scoring he should at least use his large frame to benefit the team by adding toughness. Unfortunately his addition did little to affect the overall performance of our team.

The fact is in the new NHL, strong skaters with skill have exploded onto the scene, regardless of their age, and we should not be EXPECTED to develop Kassian for another four years before he may or may not become the player we traded for.


For the TL;DR people...
- The trade did not benefit the makeup of our team during the remaining season and post season.
- Kassian is a young player with potential, but potential's all he's got unless he develops properly. Saying he needs more time does not make our team any better.
- Loss of Hodgson as our secondary offensive threat in my opinion greatly contributed to our powerplay woes in the latter half of the season, stretching into the playoff exit.
- Comparing Kassian to Kesler, Burrows, Sedins... is not a valid argument, else it begs the question why he cannot be compared to the Crosby, Ovechkin, Kane, Hall, Stamkos, Tavares,... or maybe not 1st overalls, but Evander Kane, Skinner, Couture, Couturier, Giroux, Shaw... hell, Hodgson...etc. List of young players having a big impact on even veteran teams is long and still growing.
- The final outcome of the trade has yet to be finalized for obvious reasons, but our window of opportunity if we intend on winning with our current core means we do NOT have "four years" to develop our players. We should be in a Win-Now mentality, therefore whatever "future" problems Hodgson may have been had he been discontent, did not automatically mean this trade was "good", even if MG felt it was necessary.

Edited by ChaosCanucks, 15 July 2012 - 12:27 AM.

"Ruin is the destination to which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all."
Garrett Hardin

#81 canucklehead44

canucklehead44

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,493 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 03

Posted 15 July 2012 - 09:40 AM

Players like Hodgson are more common than players like Kassian. It is possible to sign a Hodgson-type centre via free agency or trade. If Kassian develops he will be close to untouchable. Bertuzzi, even after the Moore incident, poor performance and an injury plagued season still garnered a highly touted prospect and two 2nd round picks at the deadline.

A guy like Ryan Clowe or Milan Lucic would cost a superstar player in return.

Kassian has potential to be as good if not better offensively than Hodgson. As a first year pro, Kassian scored 15 goals 26 points in 30 games compared to Hodgson's 17 goals 30 points in 52 games. At the NHL level, Kassian scored 4 goals and 10 points in 44 games to Hodgson's 1 goal, 3 points in 20 games.

I wouldn't be shocked to see Hodgson out of the NHL in a couple years. He is slow, small, and injury prone. That is a lot to overcome. Plus he has a a lot of competition in Buffalo with their recent draft picks. Burke never acquired a second line player, opening the door for the Sedins to plug away (Jan Hlavac doesn't count).

Kassian I think is 100% an NHLer in over the 10 years barring a major injury. At worst he well be kept around to hit and fight. He has fantastic skill and playmaking ability plus he is so tough that his fighting majors in the OHL dropped because nobody would fight him.
Sig too big.

#82 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,063 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 15 July 2012 - 10:07 AM

For the TL;DR people...
- The trade did not benefit the makeup of our team during the remaining season and post season.
- Kassian is a young player with potential, but potential's all he's got unless he develops properly. Saying he needs more time does not make our team any better.
- Loss of Hodgson as our secondary offensive threat in my opinion greatly contributed to our powerplay woes in the latter half of the season, stretching into the playoff exit.
- Comparing Kassian to Kesler, Burrows, Sedins... is not a valid argument, else it begs the question why he cannot be compared to the Crosby, Ovechkin, Kane, Hall, Stamkos, Tavares,... or maybe not 1st overalls, but Evander Kane, Skinner, Couture, Couturier, Giroux, Shaw... hell, Hodgson...etc. List of young players having a big impact on even veteran teams is long and still growing.
- The final outcome of the trade has yet to be finalized for obvious reasons, but our window of opportunity if we intend on winning with our current core means we do NOT have "four years" to develop our players. We should be in a Win-Now mentality, therefore whatever "future" problems Hodgson may have been had he been discontent, did not automatically mean this trade was "good", even if MG felt it was necessary.


(Takes up less room to work from the TL;DR version)

So:

- I agree the trade did not much benefit the team during the remaining season and post season. However, keeping Hodgson would likely not have resulted in any significant benefit either. Perhaps the Canucks might even have won two games vs LA, but they would still have been beaten.

- true, developing Kassian likely does not help the Canucks *now*. This being said, he can still an asset to the club, and even if he doesn't bust out and go "beast-mode" (weird expression that) this year, having him here will provide the team with a physical presence they have not really had for a few years. And maybe, just maybe, he might break out early and actually help the team, now.

- Is Hodgson a talented player with offensive upside? Yes. Hodgson is also a player who was getting very sheltered minutes here, so his results looked somewhat better than they might had he been given a more significant roll. He did score some very nice goals, in a couple of significant games. This being said, he was also lacking in other significant aspects of his game, such as face-offs.

Would keeping Hodgson have resulted in a few more goals for the Canucks in the playoff series with LA? Probably, if only a couple. Would keeping Hodgson have resulted in the Canucks beating LA, possibly going deep into the playoffs, and perhaps even resulting in a Cup win? I do not believe so. If anyone does, well, I must say that I admire their optimism.

- Will Kassian become a good NHL player? I think so. He has skating, size, and offensive potential, to go with a willingness to use his size in various ways which will help the team. Can he be compared to some of the guys you have mentioned? Sure. Why not? Just because he is not to where they are at this point in time is no reason to believe he can't, or won't get there.

Did the acquisition of Kassian assist the Canucks in last year's playoff run? Nope, and I'm not too surprised that he didn't. Further, I'm not too surprised that Gillis floated the suggestion that Kassian would make an immediate impact. It's a common thing GM's do to talk up their players (see: Burke suggesting that Toronto got the best player available in the draft with their 5th overall pick).

- I agree, the final outcome of this trade is yet to be seen. And I agree that the window of opportunity for this current core is getting narrower.

This being said, being in a "win now" mode is reliant upon a number of things other than just talent. One of these things is team chemistry. If Hodgson was unhappy with being here and his presence was detrimental to the team, then trading him was a positive move, even if it did not translate into more more goals scored and better progress into the playoffs.

Since there was (in IMO) little chance that the presence of Hodgson was going to help the team win this year, then the absence of Hodgson was not going to hurt them overly much.

regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#83 Drop Em

Drop Em

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 09

Posted 15 July 2012 - 10:16 PM

God I hope he is nothing like Lucic, If Kassian can play more of a Evander Kane justice dealer I'd be ecstatic.


And what exactly is wrong with Lucic? A big, tough, intimidating and skilled stanley Cup champion. Yeah, not the kind of player that we'd want to end up with at all. If he ends up being as good as Lucic then the Canucks will be happy and so will all of us fans.




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.