Canucks_Hockey_101, on 21 November 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:
IIRC, Hodgson's beef against the organization is that he knew Kesler was injured and wanted the 2C position as he believed he'd be more effective then injured Kesler. Kesler and AV refused the proposal and a disgruntled Hodgson was promptly traded. Rehab for Kesler, Buffalo for Hodgson and the pressbox for Kassian who is currently carrying the great burden of being the next Bertuzzi.
And Luongo is the biggest mess? Sure...
If I read correctly, I'm not sure you read correctly, or where you read that - that version seems like a slight revision. Hodgson's beef against the organization - at least the final beef (aside from the prior issues around his handling during his back issues) - started months before the trade deadline and had little or nothing to do with Kesler's injury, and ironically, Hodgson had only a few months in the NHL under his belt at the time.
If you go back and read Tony Gallagher raking up an ice-time controversy,
I think the Canucks are really playing with fire. In fact, I know they’re playing with fire with this business of what they’re doing to Hodgson. They may not have to accede to demands to be traded, if in fact they come, but you don’t want to be messing around.
Once a player starts doing that, starts asking, if you’ve gotta say no, then you’re starting to really sour the relationship and I don’t think they want to go there. They are perilously close to that kind of situation. I mean, if I had been Cody’s agent I would have been asking long ago. They have been way more than patient.
And if you read Hodgson's agent Ritch Winter's uber-pedantic 6400 word response to PITB's take on the 'controversy', you will find that Winters objected to nothing that Gallagher said - apparently the 'controversy' had everything to do with the handlers' dissatisfaction that the rookie was getting only 13/14 minutes of ice time a game. But the idea that he would be more effective than Kesler or take the 2nd line role was not specified.
Tony Gallagher implied that it was an atrocity that Hodgson wasn't given more minutes, whether they came from the top two centers, or the combination of Malhotra/Lapierre, who, as everyone knows, carry the defensive load for Vancouver, enabling the top guys to play to their strengths. IMO there really was nowhere to usurp these minutes, and Hodgson was already being optimized. I don't buy the pump and dump stories - I think you simply pump your player regardless, and Vigneault, despite his reputation, did a fairly solid job of that.
IMO, his agent did not necessarily have the most prudent conception of what is in his player's best interests. Winters undoubtedly intended well for Hodgson by pushing for more minutes for his client, but if you read what he published, he goes so far as to put Hodgson in a class with Steven Stamkos. I mean, that's flattering, but get real. If the object is to win a sizable contract for your client when his ELC comes to an end, wouldn't it be more advantageous to wait out a little more development, let the perception that your client is limited by circumstance in Vancouver percolate, show what a team guy he is by respecting the veterans and thriving in his role, and take advantage of the particular situation, which also favoured his client. In Vancouver, opposition teams had to concentrate on shutting down Henrik, and then the 40 goal scoring Selke winner, and then by the time Hodgson hits the ice, he is seeing not only bottom pairings, but also has two outstanding two-way linemates that allowed him to really play to his strengths, and some outstanding centers to learn from. There was nothing pressing him to be ready to step up to pressure filled big minutes against players who face a high quality of competition - nor did he really need to be an NHL developed defensive center, which really is not a criticism as much as it is the reality of being a rookie who is also primarily an offensive center. Winters/Gallagher and Gillis/Vigneault simply could not see eye to eye - I personally don't agree with the push to, imo prematurely, lobby for a greater role for Hodgson. It was divisive, it wasn't terribly realistic, and the optics of it, I think, really hurt Hodgson. I also think Gallagher sunk his teeth into this one so deeply and publicly that the result was to drive a rift into the team that was fairly irreconcilable. I don't see it as exclusively Hodgson's fault, but I also don't see his camp's position as being at all realistic - and it was divisive - at a fairly sensitive time for Vancouver.
I'm not at all disappointed with the way Gillis resolved it - he got the type of prospect almost all of us wanted, at the position of greatest need - and he sent Hodgson to a team where he could play precisely the type of role he wanted.
Not sure why the whining still ensues - the idea that Hodgson was the key to last year's window is more embellishment than a Kesler dive.
I agree with your point that the goaltending situation is nothing resembling that kind of mess. Luongo and Schneider have handled it exceptionally well.
Edited by oldnews, 21 November 2012 - 07:22 PM.