Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* - - - - 2 votes

Canucks making critical mistakes in hindsight?


  • Please log in to reply
552 replies to this topic

#511 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,941 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:37 PM

The only thing that Gillis could have done differently, would be to lie to Schultz.

He should have lied about the amount of ice time Schultz would get, and who his d-partner would have been. He should have lied about power play time that Schultz would get. He should have lied about the future of the organization.

Instead, Gillis was honest with Schultz, and did not extend any guarantees or promises about ice time or anything else to do with Schultz and his potential future with the Canucks' organization.

The question shouldn't be: what more could Gillis have done in order to get Schultz to sign here, but rather, what kind of things did Tambellini say to Schultz in order to get him to sign?


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

#512 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,697 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:52 PM

I don't think nucknit is a troll.
I think he simply dislikes Gillis (or Gillis.org, or lawyers, or management in general, or anyone who does ownership's bidding) so much that he tends to be dead set on finding fault in virtually everything he does. Every once in a while he seems to relent a little.
I think he's actually a Canucks fan, but is stuck between a rock and a hard place because on some level he wants to see current management fail.
I can relate to some extent - I remember when Mike Keenan was busy running a wrecking ball through the Canucks dressing room and imo being a general douche to Trevor Linden.
I don't really relate to the complaints about Gillis however.
I think the Hodgson matter has caused some folks like King, nucknit, etc to hate Gillis. I don't see it the way I did when it was Trevor Linden - I think the Hodgson camp played more than their share of the role in it all.

So there's a general tendency that goes kind of like this:
Gillis' signings suck
Gillis' drafting sucks
Gillis makes terrible trades
Gillis signs people to terrible contracts
Gillis medical staff sucks
Gillis' coach isn't fair to rookies (read Hodgson)
Gillis is a lawyer
All credit is due to the former administrations
Gillis innovations like sleep doctors, etc is just another form of making excuses.
Etc.
  • 0

#513 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,688 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:53 PM

The only thing that Gillis could have done differently, would be to lie to Schultz.

He should have lied about the amount of ice time Schultz would get, and who his d-partner would have been. He should have lied about power play time that Schultz would get. He should have lied about the future of the organization.

Instead, Gillis was honest with Schultz, and did not extend any guarantees or promises about ice time or anything else to do with Schultz and his potential future with the Canucks' organization.

The question shouldn't be: what more could Gillis have done in order to get Schultz to sign here, but rather, what kind of things did Tambellini say to Schultz in order to get him to sign?


regards,
G.


That's just it though isn't it. Having said that if Gillis goes to Shultz and says that he'll get top 4 minutes if Shultz looks at the Canucks D core and believes that I'd have to say he's not that bright. Oil got some guys to call him but essentially unless he's an idiot he knows just from looking at the rosters where he's going to get to play more.

I don't think guarantees or phone calls had anything to do with it. I think Shultz found the right fit for him right now. Oil will be a great team in the coming years and right now he can grow with that team. Here he has to fight for a spot and I really don't think he cracks this teams top 4 on a regular basis. Perhaps in a year or two he might but for right now Shultz made the best choice for himself...and that's exactly what he should have done.

Outside of lying, and even then we need to go under the presumption that Shultz has an IQ of 62 (or as nit would put it...works at 7-11) there was nothing Gillis could have done to land this kid over the oil. He is the Oilers prize for being a crappy team for so long. Good for them they got him, now hopefully they start doing something in this division because the Canucks are just as strong, the wild got exponentially better and Colorado is on it's way up as well.
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#514 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,697 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:06 PM

The only thing that Gillis could have done differently, would be to lie to Schultz.

He should have lied about the amount of ice time Schultz would get, and who his d-partner would have been. He should have lied about power play time that Schultz would get. He should have lied about the future of the organization.

Instead, Gillis was honest with Schultz, and did not extend any guarantees or promises about ice time or anything else to do with Schultz and his potential future with the Canucks' organization.

The question shouldn't be: what more could Gillis have done in order to get Schultz to sign here, but rather, what kind of things did Tambellini say to Schultz in order to get him to sign?


regards,
G.


I think you are on to something here.
And I think Elvis was bang on as well.
The Canucks couldn't honestly telll Schultz - hey kid, there's a spot waiting for you on our top pairing - or even in the top 4.
Yes, Schultz probably would put up some very good numbers on the Canucks roster even if he wasn't getting huge minutes, but there seems to be a few unavoidable bottom lines that no BS sales kick was going to change.
First - the Canucks have a top 4 that put up 163 points last year. That's pretty damn good. No matter how good and how quickly Schultz developed, it'd be a stiff competition to command minutes in Vancouver.
Second - as good as the Canucks top 6 is, the young Oilers have as much offensive talent. When it comes to meeting the criteria of his ELC bonuses, which include these stipulations:
  • Top four among defence in ice time, aggregate or per game
  • 10 goals
  • 25 assists
  • 40 points
  • 0.49 points per game
  • Top three on the defence in plus/minus
  • Top two in blocked shots
  • Getting named to the All-Rookie team
  • Making the All-Star game
  • Being named the All-Star game MVP
Realisitically he has a much greater chance of achieving these in Edmonton, particularly the bolded conditions which are bonuses that are determined relative to his team-mates.

When 75% of his ELC salary depends on these bonuses, the ELC structure clearly leaned things in Edmonton's direction. Of course, the near 3 million in potential bonuses had nothing to do with it - it was AV vs a phone call from old Oilers.

Edited by oldnews, 02 January 2013 - 06:28 PM.

  • 0

#515 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,172 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:58 PM

I think the Hodgson matter has caused some folks like King, nucknit, etc to hate Gillis. I don't see it the way I did when it was Trevor Linden - I think the Hodgson camp played more than their share of the role in it all.


But haven't you heard? Hodgson was the next Linden! :bigblush:

Flames fans are just bored IMO
  • 0

Keswho.jpg


#516 Baercheese

Baercheese

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,734 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 10

Posted 02 January 2013 - 06:02 PM

But haven't you heard? Hodgson was the next Linden! :bigblush:

Flames fans are just bored IMO

Guy's not one of us!!
  • 0

3499h5x.jpg
Johnny Gaudreau>any Casucks

Edler, Markstrom, Hansen, 2nd round pick 2014 to Islanders for Ryan Strome, 5th overall pick 2014

This is fairly even as well.

 


#517 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,697 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 02 January 2013 - 06:12 PM

But haven't you heard? Hodgson was the next Linden! :bigblush:

Flames fans are just bored IMO


Haha, yeah how many times have we heard that one.
Hard not to point out that by the time Linden was Hodgson's age (22), he had three 30 goal seasons, 255 NHL points, had been the Calder runner-up to Brian Leetch, was a natural leader and already named the Captain of the Canucks, had made the NHL all-star team... he was already a franchise player, was a point per game playoff player, he was a physical force, and he could play hockey in his own end of the ice.
  • 0

#518 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,688 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 02 January 2013 - 06:20 PM

Haha, yeah how many times have we heard that one.
Hard not to point out that by the time Linden was Hodgson's age (22), he had three 30 goal seasons, 255 NHL points, had been the Calder runner-up to Brian Leetch, was a natural leader and already named the Captain of the Canucks, had made the NHL all-star team... he was already a franchise player, was a point per game playoff player, he was a physical force, and he could play hockey in his own end of the ice.


but but but AV never gabe him a chance... :bigblush:
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#519 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,941 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 02 January 2013 - 07:00 PM

but but but AV never gabe him a chance... :bigblush:


You got that all wrong. It was Cody who gave the Canucks a chance by allowing them to draft him, not the other way around. :P

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

#520 CanucksSayEh

CanucksSayEh

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 12

Posted 02 January 2013 - 07:56 PM

lol Cody wasn't the next Linden, but please don't act like he wouldn't have helped vs LA and we aren't in a worse place without him today. He was a big part of our team. Bashing him does not make the trade better, no matter how hard ya try.
  • 2

#521 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,697 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 02 January 2013 - 08:00 PM

lol Cody wasn't the next Linden, but please don't act like he wouldn't have helped vs LA and we aren't in a worse place without him today. He was a big part of our team. Bashing him does not make the trade better, no matter how hard ya try.


No need to 'bash' him - nor make the trade any better. It was a damn good trade.
  • 0

#522 CanucksSayEh

CanucksSayEh

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 12

Posted 02 January 2013 - 08:09 PM

No need to 'bash' him - nor make the trade any better. It was a damn good trade.


Damn good trade? I don't think even the biggest Kassian fan can say that with a straight face. Nothing about it has gone "good".
  • 1

#523 TimberWolf

TimberWolf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,849 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 04

Posted 02 January 2013 - 08:35 PM

Damn good trade? I don't think even the biggest Kassian fan can say that with a straight face. Nothing about it has gone "good".


It was a fine trade.

Edited by TimberWolf, 02 January 2013 - 10:44 PM.

  • 3

I was saying Lu-Urns...

star-wars-hockey-goal.gif?w=284

#524 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,688 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 02 January 2013 - 09:08 PM

lol Cody wasn't the next Linden, but please don't act like he wouldn't have helped vs LA and we aren't in a worse place without him today. He was a big part of our team. Bashing him does not make the trade better, no matter how hard ya try.


He wouldn't have helped versus LA. That's not bashing him it's simply understanding that hockey is a team game and he wasn't going to pull the team on his shoulders. The team is also not in a worse place without him because the role he needed to be in to be successful was Keslers spot ( A guy who actually is a big part of this team)and he didn't have a chance of taking that. He was wasted on the third line and quite frankly he wasn't great at it either. He was an ok third liner and a good second liner on this team. Sadly his role here was on the third line.

So yeah, teams no worse and they still likely lose to LA.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#525 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,941 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 02 January 2013 - 09:17 PM

Damn good trade? I don't think even the biggest Kassian fan can say that with a straight face. Nothing about it has gone "good".



Hodgson is gone.



regards,
G.

Edited by Gollumpus, 02 January 2013 - 09:20 PM.

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

#526 CanucksSayEh

CanucksSayEh

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 12

Posted 02 January 2013 - 09:31 PM

He wouldn't have helped versus LA. That's not bashing him it's simply understanding that hockey is a team game and he wasn't going to pull the team on his shoulders. The team is also not in a worse place without him because the role he needed to be in to be successful was Keslers spot ( A guy who actually is a big part of this team)and he didn't have a chance of taking that. He was wasted on the third line and quite frankly he wasn't great at it either. He was an ok third liner and a good second liner on this team. Sadly his role here was on the third line.

So yeah, teams no worse and they still likely lose to LA.


Obviously he wasn't going to 'put the team on his shoulders'. He wouldn't have needed to. We didn't get blown out in any of our losses, a couple points is the difference between going into game 5 down 3-1 and upp 3-1. Our lines were seemingly drawn names outta hats. We lacked scoring depth, without Daniel we didn't have a any great sniper and our PP cost us goals rather than gained. Cody was our 4th highest scorer(?) pretty significant.

Kesler was injured

Phalsson was not good in the playoffs and is now retired

Kassian was scratched

We now lack centre depth and have concerns about young prospects filling future holes

I'm not saying Cody was a promising young center with a great shot and a history of timely goals.. wait yes I am. He would have helped in a lot of our weak areas in that series. It's just mind boggingly stupid to trade a player like Cody when Kesler was injured and we knew we needed depth scoring. Doesn't make sense.
  • 2

#527 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,688 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 02 January 2013 - 10:50 PM

Obviously he wasn't going to 'put the team on his shoulders'. He wouldn't have needed to. We didn't get blown out in any of our losses, a couple points is the difference between going into game 5 down 3-1 and upp 3-1. Our lines were seemingly drawn names outta hats. We lacked scoring depth, without Daniel we didn't have a any great sniper and our PP cost us goals rather than gained. Cody was our 4th highest scorer(?) pretty significant.

Kesler was injured

Phalsson was not good in the playoffs and is now retired

Kassian was scratched

We now lack centre depth and have concerns about young prospects filling future holes

I'm not saying Cody was a promising young center with a great shot and a history of timely goals.. wait yes I am. He would have helped in a lot of our weak areas in that series. It's just mind boggingly stupid to trade a player like Cody when Kesler was injured and we knew we needed depth scoring. Doesn't make sense.


No
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#528 CanucksSayEh

CanucksSayEh

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 12

Posted 02 January 2013 - 11:52 PM

Yes
  • 1

#529 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,476 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 03 January 2013 - 01:31 AM

Damn good trade? I don't think even the biggest Kassian fan can say that with a straight face. Nothing about it has gone "good".


The deal was good, we added something we desperately needed and did have.

And I'm happy we got a young player in return at a similar point in development, with similar upside rather than a player in his prime.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 03 January 2013 - 01:32 AM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#530 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,172 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 03 January 2013 - 01:38 AM

Yes


Just no.
  • 0

Keswho.jpg


#531 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,482 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:32 AM

No need to 'bash' him - nor make the trade any better. It was a damn good trade.

I have a suggestion .Stop bashing him.
Second suggestion is to get your head out of the sand because Kassian sat on the bench in the playoffs and Gillis said he would contribute.
At this stage we gave up a clutch scorer in Hodgson for future potential in Kassian.
  • 0

#532 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,482 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:34 AM

The deal was good, we added something we desperately needed and did have.
And I'm happy we got a young player in return at a similar point in development, with similar upside rather than a player in his prime.

Yeah,a bench warmer for a scoring center man with Kesler injured and Pahlsson long gone.
Super trade.
  • 0

#533 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,476 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:49 AM

Yeah,a bench warmer for a scoring center man with Kesler injured and Pahlsson long gone.
Super trade.


Hodgson wanted to go, and Kassian is more than a bench warmer.

We have Schroeder who can step up and play in the same spot Hodgson played in last year, and we also have Manny and Lappy btoh who can step up and capture the 3rd line spot. And it is highly likely we will get a center or 2 in return for Lu (Bozak, Kadri)

And on the flip side we have no one who can bring what Kassian can bring.
  • 0

zackass.png


#534 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,286 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:54 AM

Yeah,a bench warmer for a scoring center man with Kesler injured and Pahlsson long gone.
Super trade.


Hodgson was benched in the playoffs too, who cares?

Hodgson scored playing protected minutes. Can he do that as a second line center against top defenseman? Time will tell.

Just like time will tell with Kassian if he can become a top 6 forward.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#535 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,482 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:03 AM

Hodgson was playing third line minutes as a rookie.He has already done it.
Gillis promoted his - protected minutes schtick- in his cover the rear end speech.
I love that when Hodgson was protected but Kass cannot even get on the fourth line.
The guy playing and scoring is the guy I go with,no matter how many gullible fans buy the Gillis schtick.
  • 0

#536 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,482 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:38 AM

Hodgson was benched in the playoffs too, who cares?
Hodgson scored playing protected minutes.


Hodgson -rookie year plays 12 NHL playoff games.Averages 6.75 minutes and registers up to 20 shifts per game,averaging 11+shifts each and every playoff game he played.
Kassian-rookie year plays in 4 NHL playoff games. Averages 5.3 minutes per game and a maximum 11 shifts for 8.6 shifts per game.
  • 0

#537 WolfxHaley

WolfxHaley

    Comets Star

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

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:45 AM

Hodgson -rookie year plays 12 NHL playoff games.Averages 6.75 minutes and registers up to 20 shifts per game,averaging 11+shifts each and every playoff game he played.
Kassian-rookie year plays in 4 NHL playoff games. Averages 5.3 minutes per game and a maximum 11 shifts for 8.6 shifts per game.

Maybe the amount of games we played has something to do there?
We played 25 playoff games when Hodgson was in his rookie year. 0.48 Games Played there.
We played 5 playoff games when Kassian had his first shot with us. 0.8 Games Played.
Fun.
  • 0

Posted Image


#538 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,208 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:48 AM

Hodgson -rookie year plays 12 NHL playoff games.Averages 6.75 minutes and registers up to 20 shifts per game,averaging 11+shifts each and every playoff game he played.
Kassian-rookie year plays in 4 NHL playoff games. Averages 5.3 minutes per game and a maximum 11 shifts for 8.6 shifts per game.


We played 25 games in the 2011 playoffs, compared to just 5 last year.
So Hodgson only played in 48% of our playoff games, while Kassian played in 80%.
That works out to Hodgson playing 3.24 minutes per game, and Kassian playing 4.24 minutes per game.
So either its a moot point (which it is), or it works directly against what you are arguing.

Edited by Jägermeister, 03 January 2013 - 03:48 AM.

  • 0

Jagermeister.jpg


#539 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,451 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:17 AM

Hodgson was playing third line minutes as a rookie.He has already done it.
Gillis promoted his - protected minutes schtick- in his cover the rear end speech.
I love that when Hodgson was protected but Kass cannot even get on the fourth line.
The guy playing and scoring is the guy I go with,no matter how many gullible fans buy the Gillis schtick.


In Buffalo he was getting 2nd line to start and did nothing. They moved him down to the third and even fourth line at times.

A rookie, his father, and his agent annoying the hell out of me for two years would be enough for me to trade him too. No schtick there.


From the moment those calls started in to Hodgson’s cellphone, one question has been left hanging: Did he ask for a trade? Hodgson will deny any sort of demand or request. The agent? Well, he’s not talking. The answer lies in something gleaned from an unambiguous admission by Hodgson. “I spoke to the coach about my role on the team,” he says. “That’s not unusual.”
Well, it’s less usual than he imagines, and far less usual than the Canucks were willing to tolerate.

In Vancouver, however—with a winning team that thinks it’s heading for a playoff with one more win in reserve than last year—he was still a rookie, no matter how long he had been on the scene. NHL culture has evolved, but not a rookie’s place in it. Teams aren’t looking for dialogues with rookies. They’re around on a need-to-know, speak-when-spoken-to basis, at least with coaches and management.

When Hodsgon went to the coach to talk about his role on the team, in the broader sense he was only asking for a trade.
And when Winter tweeted that Hodgson had met with Vigneault, it just further annoyed the team. It would have been the last thing Meehan and Newport would have done, but it’s completely in character for Winter. The Canucks had to assume there was more coming.
http://www.sportsnet...gazine_feature/


Whine all you want about Hodgson getting traded, but rookies don't get to make demands on a contender. I think I was among the least surprised on this board he was traded. Gillis got what he was looking for in the trade: a young power forward. Did anybody think Kassian was as far along in development as Hodgson? No. That certainly doesn't make it a bad trade. We won't be able to decide that for several years yet.
  • 0

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#540 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,476 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:36 AM

Hodgson was playing third line minutes as a rookie.He has already done it.
Gillis promoted his - protected minutes schtick- in his cover the rear end speech.
I love that when Hodgson was protected but Kass cannot even get on the fourth line.
The guy playing and scoring is the guy I go with,no matter how many gullible fans buy the Gillis schtick.


Hodgson had better opportunity in Buffalo and did nothing, just proves he was sheltered a bit.

Would you rather have a kid who will never move up your roster complaining, or would you rather just trade him like he wants and get what you need in return?

And you talk about Kassian being on the 4th line nonstop yet when he was put on the 2nd he had a goal and an assist and that line was our best line in the game, then the genius AV puts him back on the 4th line in favor of Raymond, and the rest is history.

Hodgson wanted out, and had nowhere to else to go in our organization, get over it.
  • 0

zackass.png





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.