WolfxHaley Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 FYI, I grew up in Vancouver and only left for college. "Your" Vancouver Canucks is a reference towards the PA announcer at the games, it has nothing to do with the team that I am a fan of. I am a fan of the Canucks, which is why I spend so much time on this message board. I would think that that would be pretty obvious. Team1040 is streamed daily from my home in Chicago. First and foremost, I follow the Canucks. RE: "to prove us wrong". I'm bringing up concerns about a prospect based on hard numbers. Isn't that what message boards are for? To engage in discussion over these things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 When it's something that you've committed to for 6 years, my friend, it is. 6-year contracts are now going to be the league maximum. You only give maximum contracts to guys that are basically risk-free, which Jason Garrison absolutely is not. A total gamble, that I think will fail. Gillis got sucked into a weak UFA market for defenceman, and the Garrison contract is one that I am highly confident he'll regret. Quick, hop in your time machine and go back six months and tell Gillis what the new CBA is going to be. I'm assuming you have a time machine as you seem to know what the future holds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted January 3, 2013 Author Share Posted January 3, 2013 And there you go looking at his personal stats and the Panthers playoff hopes... "mathematically". And what difference does it make that he has only played 2 and a half seasons? That doesn't change that fact that he plays a good defensive game. I hope you realize how much that argument contradicts your belief that Schultz is going to be a star before he has even played in the NHL. (I'm not going to get in an argument about Schultz because I do think he will be good) Yeah, amazing how I look at personal stats, isn't it? Those aren't ever used to value players, are they? And the 2.5 season reference is makes a big difference. It means that he's relatively unproven! The guy's 28 years old - and he was not drafted. "Good defensive game" now earns you a 6-year contract? Is that it? Why not just bring back Aaron Rome? We should all be expecting roughly the same goals and assists from Garrison, at a minimum, going forward, based on the contract that he was levied. "Good defensive game" is not worthy of a 6-year contract at $4.6M per, period. The argument does not contradict my bullishness on Schultz. Schultz is a 22 year-old rookie professional defenceman, that was a 2nd round pick, and now has 45 points in 32 games in the AHL after Lindrosing his team and putting a whole bunch of pressure on himself to perform. Not contradictory at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted January 3, 2013 Author Share Posted January 3, 2013 Quick, hop in your time machine and go back six months and tell Gillis what the new CBA is going to be. I'm assuming you have a time machine as you seem to know what the future holds. Not the point. A 6-year contract is significant. You don't give 6-year contracts out to middle-pairing defencemen, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 That doesn't change the fact the doctors fanned on the shot, more than once. I never called him my precious. Don't you mean every doctor he saw? I'll go back to the original question: Should the Canucks medical staff be condemned when every medical professional Cody saw, including a leading US back specialist, all missed the secondary injury as well? Then consider this - in order to play Cody lied about his back so he could compete for a roster spot. Had he not, perhaps the Canucks medical staff would have looked further and found the secondary problem then. Instead the moment he was cut he bolted home, at his fathers urging, to see his own doctor. The Canucks medical staff didn't get a second look until Hodgson returned the following year. Which is when they found the secondary problem. Hodgson didn't help his own situation by being less than honest about his back. Dr: How's the back feeling? Cody: Great! No pain at all. Dr: Ok, you're cleared to play. Or.... Dr: How's the back feeling? Cody: It's still really sore and doesn't seem to be getting better. Dr: We better take another look. That's basically how it works. Having gone through physio several times I can tell you that doctors and therapists depend a great deal on what you tell them. Hodgson lies about how his back is and they are not going to look any further. He tells the truth and they will look closer. He was his own worst enemy by holding back the truth. Well you did call him precious.... I can get past that part, but the thing is, Coach of the Year called out the precious rookie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 You are simply out to lunch if you don't think that Garrison's performance last year - almost exclusively - earned him a 6-year deal. Had he repeated his 2010-11 production, 5 goals and 18 points, he may have earned himself an Aaron Rome-esque deal. Not a 6-year, $4.6M per year deal. Those are the types of contracts that you give to franchise, cornerstone-esque guys. I guess that's what you'd call Jason Garrison? Because Mike Gillis certainly has, with this signing. And I think he'll be wrong. Sports has a "what have you done lately" tendency haven't they. The fact he was offered more from other teams should be an indicator of what the league thought he was worth. Most on this board have a tendency to considerably undervalue market value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Not the point. A 6-year contract is significant. You don't give 6-year contracts out to middle-pairing defencemen, do you? Players often sign for less to get a longer term. The player gets the guaranteed money while the team gets a better cap hit. As already stated, he turned down more elsewhere. Seems to me you're clutching at straws for things to complain about while crying about anything and everything. Doom! We're doomed!! A shame the Mayan calendar didn't work out for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Garrison is unproven guys, hasn't played a minute for us, doesn't have great stats, 200 gp. 6 years at 4.5 million. Desperation is a stinky cologne. What's that? We might not be able to re-sign Edler? Oh, dear. Hey guys, Garrison is also damaged goods. Ya, he's been cleared to play now (by our stalwart medical team Coho and WM say hi) but he has a history of groin problems. Sweet. But Willie Mitchell was too much of a risk at 3.5mil. If he is such a shut down powerhouse, then can one of you guys whip up a highlight real of Garrison shutting down some NHLers? Let's see some proof. Baggins, maybe the Docs shouldn't be crucified but they have screwed up a few times, par for the course? Was CoHo's back not x-rayed? They just go by what a rookie who is desperate for icetime says? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I don't believe a muscle tear will show up on an xray, - they show the skeletal (dense) system and, with that, breaks/fractures, disloactions, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I don't believe a muscle tear will show up on an xray, - they show the skeletal system and, with that, breaks/fractures, etc. Lol. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I don't believe a muscle tear will show up on an xray, - they show the skeletal (dense) system and, with that, breaks/fractures, disloactions, etc. MRI then? Whatevs, there were 2 issues with his back and the doctors missed them both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 The argument does not contradict my bullishness on Schultz. I had to do a bit of a double-take there. I thought you had written something about your "male bovine fecal matter-ness" on Schultz. Anyways, what's this all talk about Schultz got to do with Kassian? regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 MRI then? Whatevs, there were 2 issues with his back and the doctors missed them both. Including Hodgson's own doctors. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Baggins, maybe the Docs shouldn't be crucified but they have screwed up a few times, par for the course? Was CoHo's back not x-rayed? They just go by what a rookie who is desperate for icetime says? Medicine isn't always perfect. Which is where the patient being honest comes in. Hodgson lied so he could play and lost a year as a result. He isn't the innocent victim. Who found the torn muscle? Not his own doctor or the Toronto back specialist he sent Cody to. Not his junior team medical staff or the US back specialist they recommended. The Canucks medical staff found it when he came back the following year. Perhaps if he had been honest he wouldn't have lost a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 MRI then? Whatevs, there were 2 issues with his back and the doctors missed them both. No, they found the obvious injury, the bulging disc. A player says he hurt his back and you find a back injury. Are you going to look any further? Not unless it isn't getting any better with treatment. It's not the Canucks medical staff that is questionable in the case. They didn't get another look after he came clean and said it was still a problem until the following year. You would have to question why his doctor, the Toronto back specialist, his junior team medical staff, and the US back specialist why none them looked beyond the bulging disc that wasn't getting better. When he came back to Vancouver our medical looked beyond the bulging disc and found the torn muscle that was aggravating it. You don't think honesty could have saved him some time in this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 oh scottie no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 No, they found the obvious injury, the bulging disc. A player says he hurt his back and you find a back injury. Are you going to look any further? Not unless it isn't getting any better with treatment. It's not the Canucks medical staff that is questionable in the case. They didn't get another look after he came clean and said it was still a problem until the following year. You would have to question why his doctor, the Toronto back specialist, his junior team medical staff, and the US back specialist why none them looked beyond the bulging disc that wasn't getting better. When he came back to Vancouver our medical looked beyond the bulging disc and found the torn muscle that was aggravating it. You don't think honesty could have saved him some time in this? Baggins, I think you won this one a couple of posts back. Time to stop paddling and have a wee malt to savour your victory mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 You don't think honesty could have saved him some time in this? If CoHo was lying, then I guess it's on him. If that's how it went down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFCanuck Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 As much as this post of yours really is a great deal of the truth (it is!); It's not the whole story. It was clear Hodgson was under performing that camp, but communicating with the player was substituted by calling him out and embarrassing him. We all know about AV's famous comments in regards to CoHo. And we also know the bravado of sports. Guys, particularly those who have never suffered any serious injury often get caught up in the competition. If a back, or any other injury, is sore from a workout you try and work through it until its obvious you cannot compete. I watched Hodgson at the WJC's in Ottawa, he did not look slow. It could be argued the coach should have a good enough relationship to sit him down and say "you dont look quite right, or as good as we have seen before; is anything wrong?" The team is still not free of fault. In one school of coaching you simply evaluate performance and reward the strongest and most effective. AV, in general, fit's this school. In another you manage, or "coach" and develop players to secure their best performance. That takes relationship and communication. It did not exist. And to this day, or right after he signed his contract, we hear of AV calling out Kesler for playing under expectations, even when he knew the player was injured. And by Kesler's agents reaction, turning a blind eye is testing other relationships. AV needed to handle it better then, and is till making this mistake to this day. Water under the bridge now, but??? Don't you mean every doctor he saw? I'll go back to the original question: Should the Canucks medical staff be condemned when every medical professional Cody saw, including a leading US back specialist, all missed the secondary injury as well? Then consider this - in order to play Cody lied about his back so he could compete for a roster spot. Had he not, perhaps the Canucks medical staff would have looked further and found the secondary problem then. Instead the moment he was cut he bolted home, at his fathers urging, to see his own doctor. The Canucks medical staff didn't get a second look until Hodgson returned the following year. Which is when they found the secondary problem. Hodgson didn't help his own situation by being less than honest about his back. Dr: How's the back feeling? Cody: Great! No pain at all. Dr: Ok, you're cleared to play. Or.... Dr: How's the back feeling? Cody: It's still really sore and doesn't seem to be getting better. Dr: We better take another look. That's basically how it works. Having gone through physio several times I can tell you that doctors and therapists depend a great deal on what you tell them. Hodgson lies about how his back is and they are not going to look any further. He tells the truth and they will look closer. He was his own worst enemy by holding back the truth. Well you did call him precious.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.