Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Cody Hodgson, Unforgotten Canuck

Discussion

  • Please log in to reply
239 replies to this topic

#151 Snake Doctor

Snake Doctor

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,737 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 08

Posted 30 August 2012 - 10:41 AM

You post a tribute to a whiny little kid who needs a serious ass kicking to get him to grow up. pretty much says all we need to know about you.


:towel:
  • 0
Posted Image


#152 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,062 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 30 August 2012 - 10:47 AM

I haven't gone back and and poured through the evidence but I think you got the wrong impression. What I got from MG that is was a move for the future and also hopefully it would benefit us in the present.

I don't think the general message is that it was done for a cup run. That was further evidenced by picking up Pahlsson before that trade showing that Cody wouldn't have been playing 3rd line center anyway. If you look at that way Kassian helped us more than Cody would have from the pressbox.


You're right. The whole Kassian was supposed to be an instant difference maker for last year's Cup run was a contrived argument attempting to find a way of prematurely calling the trade a fail. The argument is a fail.

Edited by oldnews, 30 August 2012 - 10:47 AM.

  • 0

#153 canucks_dynasty

canucks_dynasty

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,067 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 30 August 2012 - 10:51 AM

I still think MG should have waited until the offseason to trade Coho but...other than that...what's done is done.

I'd be sorely pissed if BUF traded Coho + Sulzer + pick to ANA for Ryan.
  • 0

#154 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,062 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 30 August 2012 - 10:53 AM

He was an undersized rookie. If you're seriously concerned him being a "defensive liability", you have a VERY short-sighted view of things. Hank Sedin isn't exactly Pavel Datsyuk is his own zone - problem?



First of all, you're putting words in my mouth. I said that a LOT of people had pegged Hodgson as the next Linden. That's the truth. The Hart winners that you've referenced didn't turn into franchise players until 2009 (at age 29), after being drafted a decade earlier. Henrik effectively came out of nowhere that year to win. Prior to that, they were even borderline 1st line players, and they were nearly lost to the Maple Leafs that very summer.



In two years, they'll be 34. They're very rich. They're family men. Especially if the Canucks (as I expect them to) take a dive over the next couple of years, I would not be shocked in the least if they were to retire. TBH, they don't really strike me as "for the love of the game" type of guys, much in the way that Naslund wasn't.



Why should he be satisfied with 3rd line minutes? The whole city could see that he deserved more. The whole city could see how good he was, and how productive he was. Why can't Kesler be either put on the wing, or traded himself? Why trade Cody?

And your argument above just supports my stance that it was dumb to trade him. Heck, if he's not "prototypical" enough for you, as a 3rd line C (which is BS, by the way), put Kesler back there. To say that Gillis' hands were tied is hogwash. His hands are tied NOW, with the goaltending situation, and he has nobody for that to blame but himself. But make no mistake, he was not forced to move Cody Hodgson.


this is a bunch of backtracking/voice throwing in a discussion with diminishing returns.
not surprised you are one of those people who sees the goaltending goldrush as a crisis - I see it as a crisis of riches.
  • 0

#155 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,062 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 30 August 2012 - 10:54 AM

I still think MG should have waited until the offseason to trade Coho but...other than that...what's done is done.

I'd be sorely pissed if BUF traded Coho + Sulzer + pick to ANA for Ryan.


so would Anaheim fans.
  • 0

#156 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,054 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 30 August 2012 - 10:56 AM

so would Anaheim fans.

snoop lion would drop a deuce.
  • 0

#157 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 30 August 2012 - 11:33 AM

this is a bunch of backtracking/voice throwing in a discussion with diminishing returns.
not surprised you are one of those people who sees the goaltending goldrush as a crisis - I see it as a crisis of riches.


Not anymore, it's not. Gillis had his fun at the "goaltending goldrush", expected it to last forever, chose to sit on two "A" goalies, and now one has asked out, who has an NTC, who controls where he goes, leaving Gillis in the worst negotiating position imaginable.

If it's "a crisis of riches" to you that we're going to be picking from scraps for an elite goaltender at a reasonable cap value long-term, OK, I'm more inclined to call it a management error to have put himself in this position to begin with.

Edited by King of the ES, 30 August 2012 - 11:34 AM.

  • 1

#158 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,062 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 30 August 2012 - 12:21 PM

Not anymore, it's not. Gillis had his fun at the "goaltending goldrush", expected it to last forever, chose to sit on two "A" goalies, and now one has asked out, who has an NTC, who controls where he goes, leaving Gillis in the worst negotiating position imaginable.

If it's "a crisis of riches" to you that we're going to be picking from scraps for an elite goaltender at a reasonable cap value long-term, OK, I'm more inclined to call it a management error to have put himself in this position to begin with.


it's gonna be alright KES
  • 0

#159 Peaches

Peaches

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,451 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 12

Posted 30 August 2012 - 03:12 PM

I find it amusing that you guys can never stop talking about me!
  • 0

2qn360i.jpg

Feminism will be outlawed. Mostly because it's a backwards idiotic viewpoint that doesn't serve any real progressive purpose.

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#160 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,464 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 06:19 PM

You're right. The whole Kassian was supposed to be an instant difference maker for last year's Cup run was a contrived argument attempting to find a way of prematurely calling the trade a fail. The argument is a fail.


That is an assumption I would think fans should be expected to make.

If Gillis aquired a player that could contribute immediately then the trade would have made a hell of a lot more sense.

In retrospect, a contending team traded away a player who could contribute now for one that couldnt. It was like Gillis panicked or something and wasnt thinking straight.
  • 1

#161 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,711 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 06:35 PM

I'd be sorely pissed if BUF traded Coho + Sulzer + pick to ANA for Ryan.


Rest easy, I suspect that Anaheim would want just a tad more than Sulzer and that Hodgson guy for Ryan.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#162 .Naslund

.Naslund

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 09

Posted 30 August 2012 - 06:36 PM

CoWho?


You really did not like Hodgson did you? Every time there's a Hodgson thread it's always littered by you post after post. Haha I also find it funny how you think its alright to bash on Hodgson, but you take great offence when people bash on Kassian a bit.

Also i heard you talking about Corsi or something. What exactly is that? Because I say players like Eberle, and Stamkos with lower Corsis than Kassian, so I'm just wondering what the significance about it is?
  • 1
Posted Image

#163 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,711 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 06:56 PM

Please, the guy's a 22 year-old rookie. 8 points in 20 games was unimpressive, yes, but you need to dig a little deeper. He had 51 shots over those 21 games. He was involved.


Hodgson was "involved" because he had 51 shots in 21 games (approx 2.5 shots per game). Raymond had 125 shots in 55 games (approx. 2.27 shots per game).

Yeah, Hodgson must have been a driving force on that Buffalo squad in the last part of the season.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#164 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,711 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 07:19 PM

If Gillis aquired a player that could contribute immediately then the trade would have made a hell of a lot more sense.

In retrospect, a contending team traded away a player who could contribute now for one that couldnt.


It might have made more sense to you (and I am not knocking your opinon), however I saw it as a trade for the future and if Kassian did contribute now, all the better.

For how the management and coaching staff wanted to play in the post season Hodgson was not that valuable to the team. Pahlsson made a lot more sense as the 3rd line center. Yes, "the team needed scoring" etc. etc. and if anyone knew that the Canucks were going to get the sorts of injuries they had last year (again) then please give me the winning lottery numbers for next week (prior to the draw, of course).

In retrospect, Hodgson hadn't contributed overly much to the offense for about the entire month prior to his being traded (2g 1a, if memory serves). Combined with his less than effective showing in the face-off circle, his lack of physical play, and his low end of average skating speed and you got a guy who had shown some potential (in one particular month) but was, at the time of the trade, showing he deserved to be back in the AHL.

Gillis was lucky to have gotten Kassian in that trade.

regards,
G.

Edited by Gollumpus, 30 August 2012 - 08:24 PM.

  • 1
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#165 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,711 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 07:21 PM

Also i heard you talking about Corsi or something. What exactly is that? Because I say players like Eberle, and Stamkos with lower Corsis than Kassian, so I'm just wondering what the significance about it is?


Oh, let me google that for you: http://hockeynumbers...si-numbers.html , http://www.fiveholef...2/on-corsi.html

regards,
G.

Edited by Gollumpus, 30 August 2012 - 07:24 PM.

  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#166 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,711 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 08:23 PM

When did Pahlsson lead the Canucks on a run?


From your question we are to assume that Hodgson did "lead' the team on a run?

I recall that Hodgson had a pretty good month, along with a lot of other players on this team. I do not recall that Hodgson led, or otherwise carried the team on his back. Did he score a couple of significant goals in a few high profile games? Absolutely he did, and full credit to him. I don't recall any instance where the team was looking lost and them turning to Hodgson to pull their bacon out of the fire.


Gillis was God when he traded for Erhoff, re-signed Burrows, re-signed the Twins, signed Hamhuis, signed Malhotra, signed Torres, picked up Higgins at the deadline, picked up Lapierre at the deadline.

Lets face it; Gillis was starting to make bad decisions. On face value Booth was a great return for Samuelsson (and ?). But Booth was another LW when we were stacked at this position, and we lost a play maker for Kesler and Raymond and a guy who could step up with the Twins. We let Torres go and yes we do miss his size and speed. We did not replace Malhotra. We lost Erhoff, and where I dont blame him for this circumstance, it was big. We have replaced his scoring, but not his ability to break pressure moving the puck. And no, as Kassian did not help us, where Hodgson was becoming a clutch scorer and valuable depth centre.


The acquisition of Booth was bad because the team was "stacked" with left wingers? I'm not sure I agree with your position.

There was Sedin on the 1st line, Higgins could play either wing on the 2nd or 3rd line, but it made more sense to have him on the 3rd line. There were also some 4th liners. Raymond was still up on blocks, and might never have come back. Sturm (and Samuelsson) had been moved in the deal which brought Booth here. How does that make the team anywhere close to being stacked on the left side? It says to me that the team needed a 2nd line left winger (which Gillis went out and got because his risk in signing Sturm had not paid off), and with Samuelsson gone in the same deal, it also said that the Canucks needed a 2nd line right winger (something they already needed even prior to Samuelsson being moved, and something which they are still lacking at this point in time).

And who of Sturm or Samuelsson are you suggesting was a playmaker or could step up with the Sedins? Sturm's best days were behind him (sadly), and he showed no significant chemistry with Kesler (and none with Raymond, who was still on the LTIR). Samuelsson was more of a shooter than a play-maker, and he didn't really show a lot of chemistry with the Sedins. If he had, then why was he on the 2nd line when the Sedins could have used a guy with Samuelsson's size and supposed grit?

Would it be nice to still have Torres on this team? Maybe. Does he have size and speed? Sure. He does have a physical style of play (when he wants to play that way, which he didn't always), and he'd fight (if he was forced into it), but he never struck me as a "go to a team-mate's defense" type of player. Torres also had a knack of taking "bad" penalties.

On top of this, Torres wanted more money and term than what was being offered by the Canucks, and he got it in Phoenix. I wouldn't want him here getting 4th line minutes at $1.75 million per season... what's that you say? If Higgins had been moved up to the 2nd line RW then Torres could have gotten 3rd line minutes? Sure, he could. And what would you suggest that Gillis do with Sturm and Samuelsson and their combined cap hit of almost $5 million? I think things worked out quite well in getting Booth, even if he has a suspect history with concussions.


I would respect MG more if he simply owned up to trading Hodgson for futures up front. Yes Gillis did state it was about creating "balance" for the play off's.


Meh, I figured it was pretty clear that Kassian was a player for the future, and if he did happen to contribute in the playoffs then all the better.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#167 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,646 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 08:26 PM

It might have made more sense to you (and I am not knocking your opinon), however I saw it as a trade for the future and if Kassian did contribute now, all the better.

For how the management and coaching staff wanted to play in the post season Hodgson was not that valuable to the team. Pahlsson made a lot more sense as the 3rd line center. Yes, "the team needed scoring" etc. etc. and if anyone knew that the Canucks were going to get the sorts of injuries they had last year (again) then please give me the winning lottery numbers for next week (prior to the draw, of course).

regards,
G.


I call horse, pigs and chicken manure with sufficient levels of urethra liquid to produce the 'Gollumpus Blend'.

Accusations and butt covering.It is almost Gillis speak.Well done.

Tell me,where is Pahlsson now?
  • 0

#168 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,464 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 08:27 PM

It might have made more sense to you (and I am not knocking your opinon), however I saw it as a trade for the future and if Kassian did contribute now, all the better.

For how the management and coaching staff wanted to play in the post season Hodgson was not that valuable to the team. Pahlsson made a lot more sense as the 3rd line center. Yes, "the team needed scoring" etc. etc. and if anyone knew that the Canucks were going to get the sorts of injuries they had last year (again) then please give me the winning lottery numbers for next week (prior to the draw, of course).

In retrospect, Hodgson hadn't contributed to the offense for about the entire month prior to his being traded (2g 1a, if memory serves). Combined with his less than effective showing in the face-off circle, his lack of physical play, and his low end of average skating speed and you got a guy who had shown some potential (in one particular month) but was, at the time of the trade, showing he deserved to be back in the AHL.

Gillis was lucky to have gotten Kassian in that trade.

regards,
G.


I dont recall his value being all that low, and I dont think that is a wise time to be trading a young player with lots of potential in any case.

As for Pahlsson, Gillis would have been able to get him whether the trade occured or not.

What I was very confused about was how he didnt get a power forward who could contribute now rather then one who may or may not pan out in the longrun.

Contending teams always try to add something extra at the dead line, they are practically expected to.

Gillis did the opposite. Such an illogical action makes me suspect this was more of a rash decision based on emotion. We all saw how angry he (still) seemed to be when he threw Hodgson under the bus at the season ending presser.
  • 1

#169 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,646 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 08:30 PM

Hodgson was "involved" because he had 51 shots in 21 games (approx 2.5 shots per game). Raymond had 125 shots in 55 games (approx. 2.27 shots per game).
Yeah, Hodgson must have been a driving force on that Buffalo squad in the last part of the season.

regards,
G.


Gump,wasn't Raymond on the second line doing diddly squat for most of the year-with the exception of snow angels and ice diving that went with the goalie crest shooting routine?
  • 0

#170 Dayman

Dayman

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Joined: 21-June 12

Posted 30 August 2012 - 08:34 PM

Ugh Hodgson fanboys are more annoying than the people who whine about Kassian
  • 0

#171 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,711 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 09:09 PM

I dont recall his value being all that low, and I dont think that is a wise time to be trading a young player with lots of potential in any case.


Well chum, I'm afraid I have to side with the school of thought which suggests that the holes in Hodgson's game were becoming more visible with each game he played. True, he had/has potential, and that offensive potential was the carrot which drew Buffalo in to make the trade. I'm not so sure the Canucks could have picked up even Kassian if they had kept Hodgson for the rest of the season and into the playoffs. Sure, maybe Hodgson would have shone, but his play in the past month did not support that belief.


As for Pahlsson, Gillis would have been able to get him whether the trade occured or not.


Absolutely correct. And after Gillis picked up Pahlsson to play 3rd line center, where would the team play Hodgson? He ahd already shown a less than spectacular ability to play on the wing. Was he terrible? No, but that being said, he wasn't anything to write home about.

And what would any kind of demotion of Hodgson do to his trade value in the off-season?


What I was very confused about was how he didnt get a power forward who could contribute now rather then one who may or may not pan out in the longrun.

Contending teams always try to add something extra at the dead line, they are practically expected to.

Gillis did the opposite. Such an illogical action makes me suspect this was more of a rash decision based on emotion. We all saw how angry he (still) seemed to be when he threw Hodgson under the bus at the season ending presser.


Yeah, I too expected something that was going to be a bit more of "now" player, and then I got a longer look at what Kassian might mean to this team and I felt much better about the trade, but yeah, something a bit more for now would also have been nice.

This being said, what do you suggest the Canucks might have given up to get such a power forward as was expected? Hodgson and who else? And the list of team's with which Gillis could likely do business would have to pretty much be the teams already out of the playoffs, because they'd likely want to hold on to their power forwards if they had a good chance at the playoffs. And it's unlikely that any team in the Canucks conference would want to trade with them (not impossible, just highly unlikely, and also likely more expensive. because teams expect you to pay more if you want them to slit their own throats come playoff time).

There'd also be the age factor. If another team was going to give up a useful power forward, they probably aren't going to give up a guy who is just entering, or is already in his prime (ie. no one for one, Benn for Hodgson deals). The Canucks might have been able to get a guy with one or two years left in him (maybe), which would draw out the calls of "trading the future".

Also, there's cap considerations to be made. This guy would likely have to make only around $1.5 million or less, unless the Canucks traded away a lot more than just Hodgson.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#172 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,711 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 09:17 PM

Gump,wasn't Raymond on the second line doing diddly squat for most of the year-with the exception of snow angels and ice diving that went with the goalie crest shooting routine?


nuck, I recall Raymond split his time between the 2nd line, the 3rd line, the 4th line and the press box. He got into only 55 games. However, at the time of the trade, Raymond was on the LTIR, no?

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#173 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,711 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 09:37 PM

I call horse, pigs and chicken manure with sufficient levels of urethra liquid to produce the 'Gollumpus Blend'.

Accusations and butt covering.It is almost Gillis speak.Well done.

Tell me,where is Pahlsson now?


And obviously, Pahlsson was a rental. I never expected him to be here past the playoffs. Did you?

He would have been too expensive and he wouldn't have had any place to play, assuming that Malhotra comes back to form this upcoming season, or perhaps Lapierre steps up his game. And with the possibility of either Schroeder and/or a new player coming here (in the assumed Luongo trade) getting some time at 3C, Pahlsson was not going to be in the cards for next year.

Were two 4th's expensive for a rental? Maybe. This being said, we've seen a lot more traded away for rentals, heck, we've even seen situations like Philadelphia getting a 3rd round pick from Pittsburg for the negotiating rights for Hamhuis, who had made it very clear that he wanted to sign a deal with the Canucks. I think Gillis didn't pay a whole lot for a guy who could have been quite valuable had the team gone deeper into the playoffs.

regards,
G.

PS - you failed to notice the elephant dung. This saddens me as I placed it in my comments as a specific salute to the quality of posts which we have seen from you. Be well. :)
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#174 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,062 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 30 August 2012 - 09:39 PM

You really did not like Hodgson did you? Every time there's a Hodgson thread it's always littered by you post after post. Haha I also find it funny how you think its alright to bash on Hodgson, but you take great offence when people bash on Kassian a bit.

Also i heard you talking about Corsi or something. What exactly is that? Because I say players like Eberle, and Stamkos with lower Corsis than Kassian, so I'm just wondering what the significance about it is?


Haha... this is a discussion - it has nothing to do with "bashing", nor is it about liking or disliking Hodgson. Haha. It's more about...

Ugh Hodgson fanboys are more annoying than the people who whine about Kassian


Mother Russia sums it up.

Hodgson seems to have a lot of fans who are desperate for a saviour, don't understand the concept of being a team player or fan of the team, swallow and regurgitate whatever drivel Tony Gallagher publishes, and believe that the trade deadline was doomsday. They created out of Hodgson the most prematurely over-rated player in franchise history, and since the trade, CDC has been endlessly littered by their crying bouts. Get over it. Suggestion: where does a person go for Sabres talk?

Edited by oldnews, 30 August 2012 - 11:07 PM.

  • 2

#175 Linden Legend

Linden Legend

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 07

Posted 30 August 2012 - 10:51 PM

Unforgotten is poor English. You should have used Unforgettable.

And for F**** sake can we please stop talking about Cody Hodgson!? Enough's Enough!
  • 0
"He'll play! You know he'll play! He'll play on crutches!"
"Adams shoots...SCORES!!! Greg Adams!!! Greg Adams!!!"
"They've slayed the dragon!!"

#176 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 31 August 2012 - 01:36 AM

"Hank only has 2 more years left under contract and has already shown signs of decline. I would not be surprised at all if the Sedin's retire at that point - in other words, when Cody Hodgson will be a mere 24 years of age."

Really? You have just said hockey is a team game and Hank got 81 points in 82 games @+23 That was in a team that quite frankly only showed up in patches last season. I don't know where you get "shows signs of decline" from. I wish the rest of our team showed such signs.
I would be shocked if Hank retired in 2 years. Especially as I would hope that we bring in the missing pieces this team has needed for the last 3 years in that time. His game is cerebral, sleight of hand, bringing other players into the game and still managing big points himself and I doubt even in 2 years there will be anyone in the team fitter than the Twins.
  • 1
Kevin.jpg

#177 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 31 August 2012 - 01:53 AM

Unforgotten is poor English. You should have used Unforgettable.

And for F**** sake can we please stop talking about Cody Hodgson!? Enough's Enough!


Each word has a slightly different emphasis imo So, slightly splitting hairs here.

Unforgettable implies that something good or bad is impossible to forget so by implication will always be remembered.

Unforgotten has no implied time. It means that something/ someone has not been forgotten at this time. However it does not mean they/or it will always be remembered.

The OP seems to have used the right word in the context of his remembering Cody now.
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#178 Linden Legend

Linden Legend

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 07

Posted 31 August 2012 - 03:21 AM

Each word has a slightly different emphasis imo So, slightly splitting hairs here.

Unforgettable implies that something good or bad is impossible to forget so by implication will always be remembered.

Unforgotten has no implied time. It means that something/ someone has not been forgotten at this time. However it does not mean they/or it will always be remembered.

The OP seems to have used the right word in the context of his remembering Cody now.


Yes I know it is a word but it is still poor English.

And for the record, you are defending a guy who made a tribute video to a player, and then spelled that players name wrong in the video. And not just a little wrong....really wrong. Chody Hodgeson??? Come on!
  • 0
"He'll play! You know he'll play! He'll play on crutches!"
"Adams shoots...SCORES!!! Greg Adams!!! Greg Adams!!!"
"They've slayed the dragon!!"

#179 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 31 August 2012 - 03:49 AM

In retrospect, Hodgson hadn't contributed overly much to the offense for about the entire month prior to his being traded (2g 1a, if memory serves). Combined with his less than effective showing in the face-off circle, his lack of physical play, and his low end of average skating speed and you got a guy who had shown some potential (in one particular month) but was, at the time of the trade, showing he deserved to be back in the AHL.

Gillis was lucky to have gotten Kassian in that trade.


:lol:

Seriously, is this a joke? How long have you been watching hockey for?

The guy's a 22 year-old rookie, and you're scrutinizing him to this level? At the time he was traded, he had 16 goals and 33 points in 63 games; that's AHL-worthy, for you? As a 22 year-old rookie centering the 3rd line with limited minutes? How'd Kassian do while here? He was stuffing his face with nachos in the press box, that's how.

"Lucky to have gotten Kassian"...come on. You can't be serious. If that's the case, then why was it reported that a bunch of GMs around the league were shocked when the deal went down, in that they couldn't believe that Cody was actually made available?

You guys can try and rationalize this trade all that you want, and continue to try and convince yourselves that Cody sucks, but if there's one thing that I can predict with confidence, it's that Cody Hodgson should go on to have a much better NHL career than Zack Kassian. And we'll need to just sit back and watch it go down, just like we did with Cam Neely.
  • 1

#180 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,646 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 31 August 2012 - 05:27 AM

Hodgson seems to have a lot of fans who are desperate for a saviour, don't understand the concept of being a team player or fan of the team, swallow and regurgitate whatever drivel Tony Gallagher publishes, and believe that the trade deadline was doomsday. They created out of Hodgson the most prematurely over-rated player in franchise history, and since the trade, CDC has been endlessly littered by their crying bouts. Get over it. Suggestion: where does a person go for Sabres talk?

Haha... this is a discussion - it has nothing to do with "bashing", nor is it about liking or disliking Hodgson. Haha.


Oldnews,you could start your campaign by getting over it,yourself -posting somewhere else-like on Sabres talk,as you suggest for others.
Check back in every once in a while to let us know how the previous Canucks players are doing.
This was a Hodgson celebration or appreciation thread and yet in a single post you offer up "swallow and regurgitate", "doomsday", "the most prematurely over -rated player in FRANCHISE HISTORY","crying","drivel","Get over it." -but it is not about "dislike" or "bashing".
You may want to check your dislike level that you state you don't have,as you will have found lots of spare time.
"Ha Ha Ha" all around,eh?

Edited by nuck nit, 31 August 2012 - 05:40 AM.

  • 0





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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.