Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Discussion] Roberto Luongo Trade Thread 3.0


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...