Multiple Warning Signs Surrounding Zack Kassian

[logic]

If I have that much power than I truly pity you. Your little inspiring speech only makes my devil horns more robust

Hail Satan everyone!

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

If I have that much power than I truly pity you. Your little inspiring speech only makes my devil horns more robust

Care bear stare?

Seriously though...make sense.

[Baggins]

Nice try. Cody played 13 games in 2009-10. Not exactly a reliable sample size, let alone considering the fact that he was playing with a busted-up back that was misdiagnosed by your Vancouver Canucks.

Cody's AHL production this year, thus far, by the way, is far higher than what it was in 2010-11.

It's not exactly misdiagnosed when he did in fact have a bulging disc. What was missed was a muscle tear. Which was also missed by his own doctor, his junior teams medical staff, and a highly regarded back specialist in the US. But people tend to ignore that part. Btw, the following year it was the Canucks medical staff that found the problem everybody missed the previous year.

The fact that you say "your Vancouver Canucks" tells me you are not in fact a Canucks fan and you're just here to stir the pot with your multitude of negative threads.

[Baggins]

Dbl post

[Herberts Vasiljevs]

Some people need to start getting a life.......

[King of the ES]

No not really, you give us the stats and that's it.

I'm asking you to tell me what it is in his actual game that is leading to this 'disaster' statistically, what in his game needs to be improved and what is good.

Where did I say "disaster"? Does "warning signs" mean "disaster"?

I don't care what's leading him to this performance, I care that it's actually taking place. Fewer goals, fewer points, fewer SOG, and higher PIMs. Most people around here were expecting him to be dominant in the AHL this year (I was not one of them). He's not performing as well as he was last year. That's why I'm starting this discussion.

[King of the ES]

The fact that you say "your Vancouver Canucks" tells me you are not in fact a Canucks fan and you're just here to stir the pot with your multitude of negative threads.

I've already addressed this. It's a reference to the PA announcer at Canucks games back in the Coliseum/GM Place days. "Yourrrrrrrrr Vancouver Canucks!"

Anyway, I'm not sure on what planet valid concerns brought up about a prospect constitute not being a fan of the team in question, nor do I have an idea of why one's fandom on this site appears to be measured by how much of a raving cheerleader he is.

[Canuck Surfer]

This thread underscores the underlying reason why this was a questionable trade; expectations!

Hodgson, certainly when he was drafted and in the short period after (thru the 08-09 WJC's) was considered a prodigy. The most exciting prospect we had had since the Twins. And a large part of the city wanted to cheer for him, but as he struggled early at least we had the team surging forward. Then we had the absolutely heartbreaking SCF loss. And when many on the team were having bad years Hodgson suddenly re-emerged and blistered slap shots past Howard and Thomas, looking like he personally could re-energize the team.

With the city's voracious appetite to vanquish the hurt of our finals loss, and the riots, and the hate from fans around the league; I posted on trade day that we deserved more than a simple prospect! Really it remains my only concern, I wanted a more immediate return ease my hurt!

Seeing as the trade was made, and u can tell I was not a fan of the move, I have not offered MG the blanket pass. And I hate the catcalls by many that do, which say people who do not see Kassian as God are not fans of the team. Nor have I given up on the trade.

I have suggested a realistic look. As a scout would view Kassian's work for the Wolves; I think there is a lot to be excited about. Kassian has speed and hands, size, strength and skills. And King should be ashamed of the doomsday way in which his numbers argument was presented. Yes the numbers suggest all is not on track; but watching him play a scout should see that those physical abilities clearly look like they could compliment NHL talents.

I think it is too much too much to expect him to be the play maker that completes a Kesler, Booth line. But;

I see him as a guy like Momesso, who had enough skills to keep up and offered play maker Ronning and scorer Courtnall a big physical body. Or maybe just a Dustin Penner who cannot maintain intensity for a top line role over a season; but can be hijacked into particular match ups where his body creates innumerable problems for certain teams that wins key games? Anyone remember Byfuglien being used that way against us... Yes there is enough promise that he could be more than that, but even questions surrounding his current performance do not limit him to any less than such a role as his potential. I will post a suggestion as to a Canucks strategy that could see him exceeding that another day? I do see enough that I am convinced he will at worst provide a viable, and valuable body.

I do not lament not getting enough return on Hodgson; just having to wait...

[oldnews]

[oldnews]

I'm glad to see that, you, King Of Bs, and Mr.MakesStupidPosts are all best friends now.

omGzzz teh codiez was trad3d kassian suks.

Get over it, Kassian will be great, all you people are, are the people that like to look down and degrade everything about our organization.

You need to turn your sarcasm and irony detectors on when reading Noheart posts.

Definitely doesn't belong in that group of 'best friends'.

[CanuckCup1316]

I think people get kinda greedy with Kassian when you see his flashes of speed, puck handling, and overall vision on the ice. You start hoping and comparing. But really what we could use from him is a guy who can step up physically in the playoffs and help us not get pushed around. If he pops a couple in here and there fantastic. Is Hodgson the better point producer in the trade? Yes! But we have enough talent to put the puck in the net. Our problem is when teams out muscle us, in the playoffs, our scorers cant produce. Hodgson would not solve that problem. Kassian may.

[-DLC-]

Where did I say "disaster"? Does "warning signs" mean "disaster"?

I don't care what's leading him to this performance, I care that it's actually taking place. Fewer goals, fewer points, fewer SOG, and higher PIMs. Most people around here were expecting him to be dominant in the AHL this year (I was not one of them). He's not performing as well as he was last year. That's why I'm starting this discussion.

That's kind of ridiculous....don't start a topic if you "don't care".

He had a shoulder injury in April that sidelined him for a period...maybe he hasn't fully shaken the after effects of that? So that doesn't matter?

If you don't factor in WHY performance might be declining, then you're not making a proper assessment. Some things speak of a lack of talent, heart, etc. in players and others, simply experience and discipline (I believe the latter applies here, to Zack). If there were no reasons, then it would be reason for concern. Zack's spent a fair amount of time in the box, meaning he isn't out there on the ice as much in order to produce the numbers (the only thing you seem concerned with). He has been undisciplined at times, but that isn't reversible and says nothing about his "skill" - more so, it's simply a sign of immaturity. He's young and there's time for him to grow/learn. This is something that can be corrected and, once it is, can see performance rise and him develop into a solid player. It (his fiery outbursts) also demonstrates a real passion for the game, one which sees emotion get the best of him at times...reign that in, and it can be used in a positive way. Power forwards can use a bit of that edge and we want grit and toughness, I think he fits that role fairly well. Just needs a bit of guidance and it appears that he's getting some good direction at the moment and his stint playing at a lower level is the perfect opportunity for him to learn to channel his energy in the appropriate way in order to be successful. Don't make assessments during that period of adjustment/learning - give adequate opportunity for the kid to find his place and then determine whether or not there are "problems". To suggest there are and then state that you "don't care why" is pretty short sighted.

To start a discussion means you also have to hear all the related facts. If you don't do that, then you're simply making a statement that won't hold water.

[oldnews]

That's kind of ridiculous. He had a shoulder injury in April that sidelined him for a period. So that doesn't matter? If you don't factor in WHY performance might be declining, then you're not making a proper assessment. If there were no reasons, then it would be reason for concern. He's also spent a fair amount of time in the box, meaning he isn't out there on the ice as much in order to produce the numbers (the only thing you seem concerned with). But that's something that can be corrected and, once it is, can see performance rise.

To start a discussion means you also have to hear all the related facts. If you don't do that, then you're simply making a statement that won't hold water.

This part isn't King's strongest attribute. He has an m.o. that kinda goes like this.

1) devalue existing Canucks roster players (endless examples - the latest being that Cam Fowler has a better shot at the Olympic team than Dan Hamhius hahaha)

2) complain about anything and everything Gillis has done (obviously he was and still is very damaged by the Hodgson trade)

3) ridiculously over-value anyone who used to be a Canuck (trading Stever Bernier was a colllllossssal mistake!!)

4) misquote, exaggerate and generally take other posters statements out of context - particularly when losing an argument.

5) look for overpaid, ineffective one-way skilled forwards to deliver a Cup

6) premium member Dion Phaneuf fan club

7) repeat 1-6 endlessly, but in a relatively respectful manner.

edit: add, of course, all Canucks prospects to 1)

[70seven]

Those who believe Kassian will be great, and those who believe he will be a bust are relative. Noone knows at this point, and the rational speculation would be that he is likley to fall somewhere in between the two.

I believe Kassian can fill multipul roles, which is what makes him a rare breed of player. The comparisons to Hodgson are unwaranted since Cody will likley only ever be capable of filling one role. If Zack fails to produce offensivley at the NHL level, he still has other attributes that can make him an effective part of a winning team.... Cody does not.

If you look at Codys projected role, and are looking for Zack to fufill it, then yes, you should indeed sound the alarm bells, cause it aint gonna happen... Likewise Mr. Hodgson will never fill the shoes of what Kassian might become, and that role likey wont be found on any stats sheet... You cant track intimidation... Or a dman that feels pressure to move a puck faster, or has to keep his head up at all times... Or a player that wears down physically and mentally, especially over a playoff series because of a 6'3" - 220 player thats in your kitchen game in and out.

The Canucks were the more worn down team vs: Boston, and the B's just added to the physical and mental stress. Tis when it became apparant that Vancouver needed some more players that could dish it out... Do you think that Cody will be the hitter, or the hittee come a Stanley cup final appearance? How bout Zack?

Now we're still in the phase of figuring out what role Zack will have, and for some Canuck fans, it's concerning, but chances are he's going to be an effective part of this team in some manner, and hopefully be able to provide a little bit of everything. But it's clear that for the moment, the Canucks are focused on developing the defensive side of his game. Its clear that he's got size, meanness, and some offensive creativity, but if he is a defensive liability, he wont fit into what the Canucks are attempting to build. This is the direction that this franchise is taking if youve followed their draft selections and development patterns of late, and it's worked out for the majority of their core players, but it's taken time. Cody didnt buy into this development system, which was reflected in his ice time, and ultimatley let to his departure. You can bet that if he had been a willing combatant, and worked through the process, that he would still be a Canuck.

If Zack continues to buy in and work hard at the development plan the Canucks have layed out for him, the trend shows that it'll pay off in the long run, and we'll have our rare and true power forward that can be physical, stand up for his teammates, produce solid offensive numbers and be dependable in his own end.

/thread

[Canuck Surfer]

Agreed; Ebbett has not been a catalyst play maker > something guys like Haydar need.

More interesting topic; How do you think McNally would fare? He's got enough size unless he's a defensive stopper. I've not seen him play...

Biggest disappointment has to be Ebbett. He's supposed to be the team's number 1 center. An if your number 1 center is not performing, then the team's offense is gonna suffer.

But it's pretty obvious that something is not right on the team. The system just doesn't match the personnel on the team. Arniel seems to wanna coach a low scoring grind em out game, but he has a team full of smaller skilled guys. Sure it worked a bit better when he had Pinizzotto and Sweatt in the lineup, but he's gotta adapt the game plan.

The lack of a top puck moving defenseman has been a problem too IMO. Connauton has had to limit that portion of his game, due to the fact that he was paired with Joslin most of the season, who is a weaker defensive player. Now that he's with Tanev, the offense has been much more aggressive because Connauton has been rushing the puck and pinching more.

I'm surprised the Wolves haven't gone out and shopped for another puck mover. But maybe Gillis has something in the works to help that. Either McNally joining the team, or a trade that's waiting for the CBA to be signed.

[King of the ES]

This part isn't King's strongest attribute. He has an m.o. that kinda goes like this.

1) devalue existing Canucks roster players (endless examples - the latest being that Cam Fowler has a better shot at the Olympic team than Dan Hamhius hahaha)

2) complain about anything and everything Gillis has done (obviously he was and still is very damaged by the Hodgson trade)

3) ridiculously over-value anyone who used to be a Canuck (trading Stever Bernier was a colllllossssal mistake!!)

4) misquote, exaggerate and generally take other posters statements out of context - particularly when losing an argument.

5) look for overpaid, ineffective one-way skilled forwards to deliver a Cup

6) premium member Dion Phaneuf fan club

7) repeat 1-6 endlessly, but in a relatively respectful manner.

edit: add, of course, all Canucks prospects to 1)

You should truly be embarrassed. Your references in #1 & #3 are totally wrong, meaning that you are the personification of #4.

It's awfully cute, though, that you're accusing me of under-valuing Canuck players ad nauseum, yet you're the guy who called himself a "homer" yesterday. You - a self-professed "homer" - cannot possibly be taken seriously around here by anyone who deals in reality, after yesterday's admission. Homers aren't reliable, because they only see what they want to see. Though guys like you make excellent cheerleaders, they're not too adept on the analytical side.

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

You should truly be embarrassed. Your references in #1 & #3 are totally wrong, meaning that you are the personification of #4.

It's awfully cute, though, that you're accusing me of under-valuing Canuck players ad nauseum, yet you're the guy who called himself a "homer" yesterday. You - a self-professed "homer" - cannot possibly be taken seriously around here by anyone who deals in reality, after yesterday's admission. Homers aren't reliable, because they only see what they want to see. Though guys like you make excellent cheerleaders, they're not too adept on the analytical side.

So if homers can't be taken seriously than shouldn't we also say that the antithesis to that (which is you) should also not be taken seriously? I mean either way neither are close to the reality that is the middle ground. He says he's a homer the other day. OK but you said today that you don't care about the circumstances of why something happens just that it happens in reference to stats.

Also he was pretty much bang on about all of those points. In general that is your m.o.

If that's not your intention that is fine but well...stats don't lie and those are your stats. If you're actually interested in discussion you go about it in an awfully funny way.

[Ghostsof1915]

Up next on the King of The Es show:

Warning signs on Cory Schneider as a Canuck starter because he has a 2.83 GAA for HC AMBRI-PIOTTA.

OH NO!!!!!!

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

Up next on the King of The Es show:

Warning signs on Cory Schneider as a Canuck starter because he has a 2.83 GAA for HC AMBRI-PIOTTA.

OH NO!!!!!!

Oh there is no doubt as soon as Luongo gets traded we will hear no end to the digs at Schneider.I mean they've been preemptively happening already.

[-DLC-]

Before you call the kettle black with "they're not too adept on the analytical side" keep in mind that someone of the thinking "I don't care what's leading to this performance" is also guilty of the same.

Being analytical involves considering all things that lead to something, not just that it happens. This is true in the case of your concerns about Kassian....you only care to see that his stats have dropped in relation to last year and have quickly concluded that this is problematic and his performance is questionable. But an analytical mind would take into consideration all things contributing to that before deciding that it's of concern.

No player goes on an endless upward trend and there will be peaks and valleys with even the best. Time is the key element here...there simply has not been enough time to adequately analyze what's (or if there's anything) wrong/right with Zack Kassian. That doesn't mean that we're stupid homers, it just means that we're allowing some time before prematurely jumping to conclusions (as you have). The sky simply isn't falling yet and you've done little to convince us that it is. No homerism involved - just reasonable patience that needs to be exercised with fairly new/inexperienced players.