Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

[Discussion] Roberto Luongo Trade Thread 3.0


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3002 replies to this topic

#1321 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:30 AM

You always seem to skip past this King... Could you address it?


What is there to address? I'm not discounting Brodeur's playoffs. He was pretty good, not Jonathan Quick good, but he did step his game up relative to the regular season.

What am I supposed to say? I was bringing up the simple point that he did not have a very good year, besides the playoffs. He was also not very good in 2010-11. What I'm ultimately meaning to point out is that he's not the same goalie today that he was, back in, say, 2003.
  • 0

#1322 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:42 AM

Good move to move that disgruntled, over-rated rookie third line center and bring in a legitimate shut down guy. Oh, they didn't win the Cup - that, like all of Gillis' moves, must have been a fail...


Yes, that move was a clear fail.

Sami Pahlsson was an absolute disaster. "A legitimate shut down guy" - sure, if you're talking about the year 2007. He was not shutting anybody down on Columbus. He's a guy that had one foot into retirement since going to the BJs, and I would venture a guess that he wasn't too happy about being traded to the Canucks. He really added no value to our team, the 3rd line was no longer a scoring threat whatsoever, and opponents no longer had to concern themselves with 3 lines - just the top two.

Trading Hodgson for Kassian was a reasonable gamble to take, but the timing made no sense at all. Hodgson is clearly the better player today, and (IMO) likely will be over the course of their careers. For a Cup contending team, why on earth would you trade your 3rd leading goal scorer for a guy who's not even close to being at that stage of development, heading into the playoffs? If Kassian was available at the deadline, there's no reason to think that he also wouldn't be available at the draft, so, yes, this was a timing error on Mike Gillis' part.
  • 1

#1323 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,627 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:42 AM

Well by the sounds of it, you still think Lu is a decent goalie. By what I've gathered from your other posts, you've made him out to be a terrible goalie. Why the sudden change?


No sudden change. Credit where credit is due but many other posters take care of that well enough.
I never thought Luongo was a terrible goalie, it just seems to me like he has most of his worst games in the playoffs and that's not what I personally expect from a supposed elite goaltender.
Also Schneider has outshined him therefore I feel like he's expendable.
  • 0

#1324 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,895 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:02 AM

Yes, that move was a clear fail.

Sami Pahlsson was an absolute disaster. "A legitimate shut down guy" - sure, if you're talking about the year 2007. He was not shutting anybody down on Columbus. He's a guy that had one foot into retirement since going to the BJs, and I would venture a guess that he wasn't too happy about being traded to the Canucks. He really added no value to our team, the 3rd line was no longer a scoring threat whatsoever, and opponents no longer had to concern themselves with 3 lines - just the top two.

Trading Hodgson for Kassian was a reasonable gamble to take, but the timing made no sense at all. Hodgson is clearly the better player today, and (IMO) likely will be over the course of their careers. For a Cup contending team, why on earth would you trade your 3rd leading goal scorer for a guy who's not even close to being at that stage of development, heading into the playoffs? If Kassian was available at the deadline, there's no reason to think that he also wouldn't be available at the draft, so, yes, this was a timing error on Mike Gillis' part.


Again - don't let any facts cloud your prejudice.

I don't expect you to understand this King, but perhaps the most difficult job in the NHL is being a shutdown center on the worst clubs in hockey. Your claim that he wasn't shutting anyone down in Columbus merely reflects an opinion that you base on absolutely nothing - and to say he was a disaster in Vancouver is oblivious. The third line was far and away the best line for the Canucks in the time he was here. Pahlsson had comparable scoring stats to Hodgson: Pahlsson6 points in 19 games with 3rd line minutes - Hodgson 8 points in 20 playing big minutes - Pahlsson was a +4 while actually playing a shutdown role, Hodgson was -7 playing matchup minutes - which means Pahlsson's line outscored the best lines on opposition teams while Hodgson got schooled the minute he was no longer sheltered by Higgins and Hansen. What a disaster! Anyone who watched Canucks hockey could see his line dominating - they enjoyed an obvious territorial advantage - they were playing in a context where the top line was missing Daniel, the second line was hobbled, and a great deal of weight had fallen on the third line. They carried it and then some. The Canucks weren't going anywhere further with a liability centering their third line. Smart move - undermined only by injuries to Daniel and Kesler. Not going to beat L.A. when your third line is the only line that is healthy and playing well. Pahlsson 'only' had a goal in the playoffs and really, he should have been able to shut down Brown, Kopitar etc - what a letdown.
Pahlsson was a guy who had very low offensive zone starts - only 29.7% - delivered 46.6% offensive zone finishes - and his relative corsi in the ballpark of that rookie you lavish with undue praise. Where Pahlsson was -9.0, Canucks with a comparable role were -20.7 (Lapierre) and -32.6 (Malhotra) - and only a noob would complain about the defensive job that either of those guys did.
The only credible things you said were that Pahlsson was leaning towards home, and that Kassian was a reasonable gamble to take.
  • 1

#1325 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:38 AM

I don't expect you to understand this King, but perhaps the most difficult job in the NHL is being a shutdown center on the worst clubs in hockey. Your claim that he wasn't shutting anyone down in Columbus merely reflects an opinion that you base on absolutely nothing - and to say he was a disaster in Vancouver is oblivious.


Columbus' GA/game:

-2011-12: 28th in the NHL
-2010-11: 26th in the NHL
-2009-10: 24th in the NHL

-2011-12: -6
-2010-11: -13
-2009-10: -9

Indeed, a good thing that Columbus was able to sign this "shut down" centreman to their team. They also finished 27th, 24th, and dead last in the NHL during Sami's 3 years.

I'll ask again: who was he shutting down? Or is somebody else to blame?

The third line was far and away the best line for the Canucks in the time he was here. Pahlsson had comparable scoring stats to Hodgson: Pahlsson6 points in 19 games with 3rd line minutes - Hodgson 8 points in 20 playing big minutes - Pahlsson was a +4 while actually playing a shutdown role, Hodgson was -7 playing matchup minutes - which means Pahlsson's line outscored the best lines on opposition teams while Hodgson got schooled the minute he was no longer sheltered by Higgins and Hansen. What a disaster!


For a guy who prefaced his post with "don't let any facts cloud your prejudice", I guess it's an appropriate time to point out that Cody averaged 13:49/G of ice-time last year, while Sami averaged 14:46. The small amount of games that each team played with their new teams would not have skewed it very much.

And I love all the bitterness and hatred shining through you in the above paragraph. Wow! "What a disaster!"..."sheltered by Higgins and Hansen"...

Anyone who watched Canucks hockey could see his line dominating - they enjoyed an obvious territorial advantage - they were playing in a context where the top line was missing Daniel, the second line was hobbled, and a great deal of weight had fallen on the third line. They carried it and then some. The Canucks weren't going anywhere further with a liability centering their third line. Smart move - undermined only by injuries to Daniel and Kesler. Not going to beat L.A. when your third line is the only line that is healthy and playing well. Pahlsson 'only' had a goal in the playoffs and really, he should have been able to shut down Brown, Kopitar etc - what a letdown.
Pahlsson was a guy who had very low offensive zone starts - only 29.7% - delivered 46.6% offensive zone finishes - and his relative corsi in the ballpark of that rookie you lavish with undue praise. Where Pahlsson was -9.0, Canucks with a comparable role were -20.7 (Lapierre) and -32.6 (Malhotra) - and only a noob would complain about the defensive job that either of those guys did.


Quick question - if he's so great - "dominant", even, as you've suggested above, why didn't Mike Gillis extend him? Why didn't any other NHL team sign him? Waiting for the CBA to play out? Guess again.
  • 0

#1326 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,648 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:42 AM

Yes, that move was a clear fail.

Trading Hodgson for Kassian was a reasonable gamble to take, but the timing made no sense at all. Hodgson is clearly the better player today, and (IMO) likely will be over the course of their careers. For a Cup contending team, why on earth would you trade your 3rd leading goal scorer for a guy who's not even close to being at that stage of development, heading into the playoffs?



Why do you keep saying this? (this is the second time I've called you on it, BTW)

Hodgson was not the "3rd leading goal scorer" on the Canucks. He was tied for 5th with Booth and Hansen. (and Booth played less games)

FTR, I agree with your opinion that the trade was ill-timed, (and have said so from the beginning) but there's no reason to fudge stats to reinforce your position. The argument stands on it's own merit and exaggeration just cheapens it.
  • 3
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#1327 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,195 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 12

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:24 PM

Disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing is of bad faith.

Edited by Canucks_Hockey_101, 20 November 2012 - 12:25 PM.

  • 0

#1328 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,814 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:28 PM

Trading Hodgson for Kassian was a reasonable gamble to take, but the timing made no sense at all. Hodgson is clearly the better player today, and (IMO) likely will be over the course of their careers. For a Cup contending team, why on earth would you trade your 3rd leading goal scorer for a guy who's not even close to being at that stage of development, heading into the playoffs? If Kassian was available at the deadline, there's no reason to think that he also wouldn't be available at the draft, so, yes, this was a timing error on Mike Gillis' part.


So, you criticize Gillis for waiting to trade Schneider, and you criticize him for not waiting to trade Hodgson. Are you never satisfied with anything?

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

#1329 WolfxHaley

WolfxHaley

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 10

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:28 PM

What is there to address? I'm not discounting Brodeur's playoffs. He was pretty good, not Jonathan Quick good, but he did step his game up relative to the regular season.

What am I supposed to say? I was bringing up the simple point that he did not have a very good year, besides the playoffs. He was also not very good in 2010-11. What I'm ultimately meaning to point out is that he's not the same goalie today that he was, back in, say, 2003.

Okay, Well thanks for at least clearing that up.
  • 0

Posted Image


#1330 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,512 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:30 PM

Disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing is of bad faith.

You're last couple of zen posts are the most I've gotten out of this thread in awhile. You should make CDC fortune cookies.
  • 1

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#1331 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:51 PM

Hodgson was not the "3rd leading goal scorer" on the Canucks. He was tied for 5th with Booth and Hansen. (and Booth played less games)


If that is correct, then I apologize.

I was talking about goals, though, not points. Pretty sure that Cody was 3rd in goals at that time, though I guess I could be wrong.
  • 0

#1332 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:53 PM

So, you criticize Gillis for waiting to trade Schneider, and you criticize him for not waiting to trade Hodgson. Are you never satisfied with anything?


Because I disagree with a couple of the GMs moves (and only the timing of the Hodgson one), I'm "never satisfied with anything"? Typical Canuck homer answer. Any time a Canuck player, transaction, or draft pick is questioned, you're a troll, a hater, etc.
  • 0

#1333 Lui's Knob

Lui's Knob

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,904 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 10

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:13 PM

How about trade luongo for Russian goalie prospect Ustinky.... Yes you read that correctly. With a name like that for a goalie...


  • 1

#1334 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,512 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:26 PM

How about trade luongo for Russian goalie prospect Ustinky.... Yes you read that correctly. With a name like that for a goalie...

I know you're joking but come on. At least make it reasonably funny.
  • 0

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs

Gaudreau has one NHL goal whereas all your "prized" prospects have none.

   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#1335 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,138 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:31 PM

How about trade luongo for Russian goalie prospect Ustinky.... Yes you read that correctly. With a name like that for a goalie...


Posted Image
  • 0
Posted Image

#1336 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,152 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:45 PM

So, you criticize Gillis for waiting to trade Schneider, and you criticize him for not waiting to trade Hodgson. Are you never satisfied with anything?

regards,
G.


Actually; aside from mucking up the stat on 3rd best...; This was one of the most coherent (and reasonable posts I have seen on the Hodgson trade. I have some disagreement with his point on Pahlsson, but it is not what I am commenting about. There was, of course, mass uproar when CoHo was first traded. And an obvious (and embarrassing) propaganda campaign that became tiring old news to discredit Hodgson in order to position support for the move.

Speaking of Old News who has bought all that propaganda? I enjoyed watching Hodgson and wish people would stop bad mouthing him. If we were propping him up, it just seemed a good coaching move to be putting an offensive player in offensive situations when the Twins and Kesler were struggling. And when he was playing well in january, we also had our best win streak of the year. Ah, never mind...

It was a gamble, and bad timing. We desperately needed a right winger, also size and some grit so there was a reason for the gamble. Getting an unproven entity to provide it going in to the playoff's was, and remains, questionable. Moving forward; hopefully a Lou trade returns a young center which we also ultimately (now) need and Kassian becomes the physical stud also needed as a payoff on that gamble?

Yes, that move was a clear fail.

Sami Pahlsson was an absolute disaster. "A legitimate shut down guy" - sure, if you're talking about the year 2007. He was not shutting anybody down on Columbus. He's a guy that had one foot into retirement since going to the BJs, and I would venture a guess that he wasn't too happy about being traded to the Canucks. He really added no value to our team, the 3rd line was no longer a scoring threat whatsoever, and opponents no longer had to concern themselves with 3 lines - just the top two.

Trading Hodgson for Kassian was a reasonable gamble to take, but the timing made no sense at all. Hodgson is clearly the better player today, and (IMO) likely will be over the course of their careers. For a Cup contending team, why on earth would you trade your 3rd leading goal scorer for a guy who's not even close to being at that stage of development, heading into the playoffs? If Kassian was available at the deadline, there's no reason to think that he also wouldn't be available at the draft, so, yes, this was a timing error on Mike Gillis' part.


  • 0

#1337 Lui's Knob

Lui's Knob

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,904 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 10

Posted 20 November 2012 - 02:04 PM

Igor Ustinky - 3rd string goalie for Russian juniors... Look em up!
  • 1

#1338 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,895 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 02:56 PM

Speaking of Old News who has bought all that propaganda? I enjoyed watching Hodgson and wish people would stop bad mouthing him. If we were propping him up, it just seemed a good coaching move to be putting an offensive player in offensive situations when the Twins and Kesler were struggling. And when he was playing well in january, we also had our best win streak of the year. Ah, never mind...


Ok there, ye who exclaims:

"Hodgson, you look so very pretty!"

You can call the stats "propaganda" if you want. It's funny how some people here love to complain about Vigneault and Gillis, endlessly, yet object so strongly to bringing up Hodgson's corsi stats, his plus/minus, the contexts in which he was successful... So you are in love with Cody Hodgson, and therefore that analysis is 'propaganda' to you... what I referenced were facts like Hodgson, while getting more offensive than defensive zone starts, had a -6.8 relative corsi - while his linemates - Hansen had 40.4% off zone and yet a better rel corsi nevertheless, and Higgins had 46.6% and a positive rel corsi. It makes perfect sense to use a player in situations that serve and take advantage of their strengths. For all the criticisim, in the end AV had been using Hodgson in a very appropriate way, and in as many situations as possible given his strengths. All the whining that he wasn't getting enough ice-time however, were very short sighted.

I also pointed out that Pahlsson, while an obvious shutdown guy, had 6 points in 19 games and a +4 against quality competition, while Hodgson had 8 points in 20 games and a -7 after the trade. People here maintain endlessly what a disaster these deals were, how terrible that decision was going into the playoffs, and yet the reality doesn't reflect anything resembing that. Where is the 'propaganda' exactly? I can see why people who can't let go, can't accept that Hodgson was traded, are so resistant to hockey analysis - it gets in the way of their sentimental fantasies about how important the young player was to the Canucks. He was a rookie - he is not yet a player who can handle the NHL game in his own end of the ice - he has great offensive skills with the puck on his stick - but he is and was not ready to be the force that some people were expecting. It's remarkable how much saviour status was put on his shoulder - he wasn't going to make a difference in last year's playoffs. It was much more likely that, as he did in Buffalo, he'd struggle significantly facing the type of matchups he would have in a series like the Canucks faced against the Kings. I think the real reason people respond so emotionally and defensively to these discussions of Hodgson's actual game is because they had put all their wholesale eggs in this faith that he was The Answer. Give it up folks - you can still love Hodgson all you want, but it's a done deal, and the reasoning behind it, even if there had been no additional controversies, made perfect sense.

Edited by oldnews, 20 November 2012 - 03:26 PM.

  • 0

#1339 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,895 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:21 PM

Columbus' GA/game:

-2011-12: 28th in the NHL
-2010-11: 26th in the NHL
-2009-10: 24th in the NHL

-2011-12: -6
-2010-11: -13
-2009-10: -9

Indeed, a good thing that Columbus was able to sign this "shut down" centreman to their team. They also finished 27th, 24th, and dead last in the NHL during Sami's 3 years.

I'll ask again: who was he shutting down? Or is somebody else to blame?



For a guy who prefaced his post with "don't let any facts cloud your prejudice", I guess it's an appropriate time to point out that Cody averaged 13:49/G of ice-time last year, while Sami averaged 14:46. The small amount of games that each team played with their new teams would not have skewed it very much.

And I love all the bitterness and hatred shining through you in the above paragraph. Wow! "What a disaster!"..."sheltered by Higgins and Hansen"...



Quick question - if he's so great - "dominant", even, as you've suggested above, why didn't Mike Gillis extend him? Why didn't any other NHL team sign him? Waiting for the CBA to play out? Guess again.


You're right. Columbus' goals against average is a very strong indication that Pahlsson is ineffective - their league-low winning percentage also indicates that Rick Nash was a loser, and their bad power play shows that Jeff Carter can't put the puck in the net.

Cody's ice time jumped 5 minutes a game in Buffalo - he was under his average of 13:49 a game only once in 20 games (in the midst of 8 straight minus games) - only two games under 16 minutes - Pahlsson on the other hand played over 16 minutes only twice in 20 games in Vancouver.

Oh, these facts are so bitter of me - while your unqualified whining about Gillis has nothing to do with unfounded hating and bitterness...

You'll have to ask Pahlsson why he did not to re-sign in Vancouver - he left the NHL to sign with Modo of the Swedish Elite League - in his hometown of Örnsköldsvik. You claimed that he was "a guy that had one foot into retirement since going to the BJs, and I would venture a guess that he wasn't too happy about being traded to the Canucks" - so you'll have to make up your mind whether you want to blame Gillis, or claim that Pahlsson had no interest in being here - as usual, you want to work it both ways.
  • 1

#1340 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,370 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:21 PM

You can call the stats "propaganda" if you want. It makes perfect sense to use a player in situations that serve and take advantage of their strengths. For all the criticisim, in the end AV had been using Hodgson in a very appropriate way, and in as many situations as possible given his strengths. All the whining that he wasn't getting enough ice-time however, were very short sighted. It's funny how some people here love to complain about Vigneault and Gillis, endlessly, yet object so strongly to bringing up Hodgson's corsi stats, his plus/minus, the contexts in which he was successful... You like Hodgson, and therefore that analysis is 'propaganda' to you... what I referenced were facts like Hodgson, while getting more offensive than defensive zone starts, had a -6.8 relative corsi - while his linemates - Hansen had 40.4% off zone and yet a better rel corsi nevertheless, and Higgins had 46.6% and a positive rel corsi. I also pointed out that Pahlsson, while an obvious shutdown guy, had 6 points in 19 games and a +4 against quality competition, while Hodgson had 8 points in 20 games and a -7 after the trade. People here maintain endlessly what a disaster these deals were, how terrible that decision was going into the playoffs, and yet the reality doesn't reflect anything resembing that. Where is the 'propaganda' exactly? I can see why people who can't let go, can't accept that Hodgson was traded, are so resistant to hockey analysis - it gets in the way of their sentimental fantasies about how important the young player was to the Canucks. He was a rookie - he is not yet a player who can handle the NHL game in his own end of the ice - he has great offensive skills with the puck on his stick - but he is and was not ready to be the force that some people were expecting. It's remarkable how much saviour status was put on his shoulder - he wasn't going to make a difference in last year's playoffs. It was much more likely that, as he did in Buffalo, he'd struggle significantly facing the type of matchups he would have in a series like the Canucks faced against the Kings. I think the real reason people respond so emotionally and defensively to these discussions of Hodgson's actual game is because they had put all their wholesale eggs in this faith that he was The Answer. Give it up folks - it's a done deal, and the reasoning behind it, even if there had been no additional controversies, made perfect sense.


I for one was a huge supporter of Hodgon's in juniors and in his time with the Canucks. I also though Kassian was a great player though too, with different talents.

I think the one thing that was tough was that when Hodgson finally started to pay some dividends we never got to see one final push, a.k.a. the playoffs, to see what he could do. Granted the timing seemed ill but in retrospect I believe Buffalo only had the deal on the table during the trade deadline in order to make their own push for the playoffs. Gillis saw what he wanted and took it. Also, you've outlined your arguments very well. We didn't really lose much in terms of production or results on the third line as result. A lot of people can't handle reality but in retrospect that did not make or break for us against the Kings IMO. We were siimply outclassed in that series. No matter what our forwards did shotty defensive play could not have been corrected by having Hodgson in the lineup. He may have played awesome and won us the cup but chances are he would have been completely overwhelmed and we would have been completely destroyed.

Edited by Dogbyte, 20 November 2012 - 03:30 PM.

  • 0

Canuckslogo160x160.jpg


#1341 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,648 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:33 PM

If that is correct, then I apologize.

I was talking about goals, though, not points. Pretty sure that Cody was 3rd in goals at that time, though I guess I could be wrong.


Actually King, I went back and checked and even though I didn't follow it all the way through, it looks like Higgins and Booth both caught up to Coho (and in Higgins' case, passed) after he left. You were correct. My bad.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#1342 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:36 PM

For all the criticisim, in the end AV had been using Hodgson in a very appropriate way, and in as many situations as possible given his strengths.


OK, so why should Hodgson be bashed because of that? Why should Mike Gillis call a press conference and announce to the world the fallacious notion that they "artificially inflated" Cody Hodgson's stats and trade value?

People here maintain endlessly what a disaster these deals were, how terrible that decision was going into the playoffs, and yet the reality doesn't reflect anything resembing that.



Refresh my memory; how'd we fare in the 2012 playoffs?

It's remarkable how much saviour status was put on his shoulder - he wasn't going to make a difference in last year's playoffs.


Dumb thing to say, you have no idea what would've happened. Hodgson stepped up noticeably in key games of ours earlier in the year (Boston & Detroit ring a bell), and the fundamental change that occurred on the Canucks when he was moved was that we went from having 3 lines that could score to 2.

It was much more likely that, as he did in Buffalo, he'd struggle significantly facing the type of matchups he would have in a series like the Canucks faced against the Kings. I think the real reason people respond so emotionally and defensively to these discussions of Hodgson's actual game is because they had put all their wholesale eggs in this faith that he was The Answer. Give it up folks - you can still love Hodgson all you want, but it's a done deal, and the reasoning behind it, even if there had been no additional controversies, made perfect sense.


LOL!

Nobody's been more emotional and defensive than you have. Two posts ago it was "What a disaster!" and "Cody was being carried by Higgins and Hansen, and on Buffalo he had nobody that could do that" (something to that effect). Don't kid yourself.

And the reasoning behind it is OK, yes, the timing was not. Zack Kassian watched the playoffs from the press box. Cody would've been playing. And yes, he's better than Sami Pahlsson.
  • 0

#1343 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,895 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:36 PM

I for one was a huge supporter of Hodgon's in juniors and in his time with the Canucks. I also though Kassian was a great player though too, with different talents.

I think the one thing that was tough was that when Hodgson finally started to pay some dividends we never got to see one final push, a.k.a. the playoffs, to see what he could do. Granted the timing seemed ill but in retrospect I believe Buffalo only had the deal on the table during the trade deadline in order to make their own push for the playoffs. Gillis saw what he wanted and took it. Also, you've outlined your arguments very well. We didn't really lose much in terms of production or results on the third line as result. A lot of people can't handle reality but in retrospect that did not make or break for us against the Kings IMO. We were siimply outclassed in that series. No matter what our forwards did shotty defensive play could not have been corrrected.


I agree with you - and in reality, the Canucks simply were not going to go on a run to the Stanley Cup with Daniel injured and Kesler hobbling - wishful thinking.

I also thought and still think Hodgson was and is a great young player - star at the WJC - and he has some serious upside - but as a rookie at his stage of development, he was essentially a role player - and all the over-rating and accolades were premature. AV was actually nailing it in terms of optimizing how he was used. That is not simply a "pump and dump" thing - it is what good coaches do, in the interests of the team and that player. He was very good in the 13 minutes he was getting, in appropriate situations - but he wasn't ready to take on a larger role, he doesn't have the two-way game to stand on it's own, and all the Gallagherian whining (and Hodgson's agent's whisper campaign) about his underutilization was pretty annoying.
  • 0

#1344 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:40 PM

You'll have to ask Pahlsson why he did not to re-sign in Vancouver - he left the NHL to sign with Modo of the Swedish Elite League - in his hometown of Örnsköldsvik. You claimed that he was "a guy that had one foot into retirement since going to the BJs, and I would venture a guess that he wasn't too happy about being traded to the Canucks" - so you'll have to make up your mind whether you want to blame Gillis, or claim that Pahlsson had no interest in being here - as usual, you want to work it both ways.


Nope, I just don't think Gillis (or any other NHL team, evidently) had much interest in signing him.
  • 0

#1345 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,895 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:42 PM

Yes, that move was a clear fail.

Sami Pahlsson was an absolute disaster.


Refresh my memory


LOL!

Nobody's been more emotional and defensive than you have. Two posts ago it was "What a disaster!" and "Cody was being carried by Higgins and Hansen, and on Buffalo he had nobody that could do that" (something to that effect). Don't kid yourself..


Uh, yeah, to refresh your memory, the "What a disaster" sarcasm was actually a reference to your Pahlsson was an "absolute disaster" comment.

Derp.
  • 0

#1346 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:45 PM

I also thought and still think Hodgson was and is a great young player - star at the WJC - and he has some serious upside - but as a rookie at his stage of development, he was essentially a role player - and all the over-rating and accolades were premature. AV was actually nailing it in terms of optimizing how he was used. That is not simply a "pump and dump" thing - it is what good coaches do, in the interests of the team and that player. He was very good in the 13 minutes he was getting, in appropriate situations - but he wasn't ready to take on a larger role, he doesn't have the two-way game to stand on it's own, and all the Gallagherian whining (and Hodgson's agent's whisper campaign) about his underutilization was pretty annoying.


He was more than a role player, he had more goals than all but 2 players on the Vancouver Canucks when he was traded. Given his low allocation of minutes - and 3rd line linemates - he was being extraordinarily productive for us.

It's nice to be a two-way, all-around, versatile, Ryan Kesler type, but not everybody is that way. Danny & Hank won't be winning any Selke Trophy's anytime soon, and that's fine.
  • 0

#1347 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:46 PM

Uh, yeah, to refresh your memory, the "What a disaster" sarcasm was actually a reference to your Pahlsson was an "absolute disaster" comment.

Derp.


When the President's Trophy winners get ousted in 5 games in round 1, yes, that can be referred to as a disaster.

Substituting Hodgson for Pahlsson completely altered the makeup of the team, and it showed.
  • 0

#1348 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,895 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:54 PM

When the President's Trophy winners get ousted in 5 games in round 1, yes, that can be referred to as a disaster.


oh King, that was such an emotional, defensive thing to say - and it must have all been Samuel Pahlsson's fault, lol.
  • 0

#1349 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,895 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:56 PM

He was more than a role player, he had more goals than all but 2 players on the Vancouver Canucks when he was traded. Given his low allocation of minutes - and 3rd line linemates - he was being extraordinarily productive for us.

It's nice to be a two-way, all-around, versatile, Ryan Kesler type, but not everybody is that way. Danny & Hank won't be winning any Selke Trophy's anytime soon, and that's fine.


Now there's the issue - Kesler - the guy who scored 41 goals the year before, won the Selke.... the guy whose minutes, according to Gallagher and a whole gaggle of other halfwits, should have been given to the rookie?
  • 0

#1350 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,895 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:01 PM

Yes, that move was a clear fail.

Sami Pahlsson was an absolute disaster. "A legitimate shut down guy" - sure, if you're talking about the year 2007. He was not shutting anybody down on Columbus. He's a guy that had one foot into retirement since going to the BJs, and I would venture a guess that he wasn't too happy about being traded to the Canucks. He really added no value to our team, the 3rd line was no longer a scoring threat whatsoever, and opponents no longer had to concern themselves with 3 lines - just the top two.

Trading Hodgson for Kassian was a reasonable gamble to take, but the timing made no sense at all. Hodgson is clearly the better player today, and (IMO) likely will be over the course of their careers. For a Cup contending team, why on earth would you trade your 3rd leading goal scorer for a guy who's not even close to being at that stage of development, heading into the playoffs? If Kassian was available at the deadline, there's no reason to think that he also wouldn't be available at the draft, so, yes, this was a timing error on Mike Gillis' part.


Nope, I just don't think Gillis (or any other NHL team, evidently) had much interest in signing him.


So the bolded parts are a load of B.S. then.
And why all the bashing of Pahlsson? Why so much irrational, emotional, aggressiveness? Why so defensive when I suggest that Pahlsson was actually a better shutdown guy than people like you realized?
  • 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.