Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* - - - - 9 votes

MG should be on thin ice...


  • Please log in to reply
212 replies to this topic

#91 pistolpro327

pistolpro327

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 06

Posted 17 January 2013 - 06:26 PM

It's funny when people say that coho and grabner had no place on team when in reality they were never given a chance.

I remember watching countless times Grabner would just rocket past defensemen for breakaways when they were already in position yet he still blew right past them over the blueline with his crazy skating.

CoHo in limited minutes was scoring well and developing nicely and then gets traded for Kassian who is no where near where Coho was in terms of adapting and fitting in.

IMO I would rather have COHO and Grabner right now because our Depth on D is great even without Ballard and Kassian does nothing for us.

We need those guys.

In the end though everything that happened definitely happened and I have come to terms with it all and really don't care long as the Canucks ice a playoff team and make a good run.
  • 0

#92 Sanford

Sanford

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,424 posts
  • Joined: 23-December 07

Posted 17 January 2013 - 06:33 PM

I approve of this thread.

It's about time CDC becomes critical again.
  • 1
Posted Image

#93 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 75,300 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 06:35 PM

Let's move on, shall we?
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#94 Starfruits

Starfruits

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,804 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 09

Posted 17 January 2013 - 06:36 PM

It's funny when people say that coho and grabner had no place on team when in reality they were never given a chance.

I remember watching countless times Grabner would just rocket past defensemen for breakaways when they were already in position yet he still blew right past them over the blueline with his crazy skating.

CoHo in limited minutes was scoring well and developing nicely and then gets traded for Kassian who is no where near where Coho was in terms of adapting and fitting in.

IMO I would rather have COHO and Grabner right now because our Depth on D is great even without Ballard and Kassian does nothing for us.

We need those guys.

In the end though everything that happened definitely happened and I have come to terms with it all and really don't care long as the Canucks ice a playoff team and make a good run.


Seriously, nit-picking on Kassian already? He barely was wearing the Canucks jersey for half of a season! It takes time to develop a player, give him a chance! I'm sure he will improve during this season.
  • 1

#95 thehamburglar

thehamburglar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,282 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 07:37 PM

I can see a bad Luongo trade, and no playoffs/early exit being AV or Gillis' time to go.
  • 0
Posted Image

#96 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,966 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 07:50 PM

It's funny when people say that coho and grabner had no place on team when in reality they were never given a chance.


Yeah, I agree. The Canucks should have dumped Sedin and Kesler, and let Hodgson play 40 minutes a night! And at the time of the Ballard trade, the Canucks top-6 wingers were Sedin (29g), Burrows (35g), Samuelsson (30) and Raymond (25g). Who would you have moved... without using the 20/20 hindsight card?


I remember watching countless times Grabner would just rocket past defensemen for breakaways when they were already in position yet he still blew right past them over the blueline with his crazy skating.


Yeah, and then he'd be stripped of the puck and the play would go back into the Canuck end, and because Grabner was taking his time going to the bench it would result in an uneven strength chance and often a very good scoring chance for them, if not a goal. Good times. :)


Hodgson in limited minutes was scoring well and developing nicely and then gets traded for Kassian who is no where near where Coho was in terms of adapting and fitting in.


Hodgson wasn't as good as your memory says he was. He played sheltered minutes with a couple of very talented hockey players who made sure that his defensive lapses were less costly to the team. Yeah, having an extra 5 goals from him would have been nice. Though the likely extra 10+ goals that would have been scored against the team would have sucked. Do you think that the switch from him being +8 in 63 games with the Canucks and then dropping down to -7 in only 20 games with the Sabres was just bad puck luck?

And his face-offs were really lacking, but I'm sure he'll get better, eventually.

You also forgot to mention that he was going to be the future captain of the team.

IMO I would rather have COHO and Grabner right now because our Depth on D is great even without Ballard and Kassian does nothing for us.

We need those guys.


IMO I would rather not have Hodgson and Grabner. And I believe you should re-evalute your memories of what the Canucks' defense was like at the time of the Ballard trade. An extra d-man was a necessity. A prospect who had potential, which he didn't always live up to, on a team which had a very solid top-6, was not.

Hodgson was not a necessity as his style of play was better suited as a top-6 forward. Would I have liked to have kept him? Sure. Would I want him as the 3C? Heck no. Would he want to stay with the Canucks as an AHL player? Likely not. At the time of the trade there was no need for a third wheel top-6 center. Hodgson was a tradeable asset.

The Canucks don't need those guys.


regards,
G.
  • 1
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#97 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,220 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 17 January 2013 - 08:27 PM

People keep saying Coho was a bad draft pick. Why? He developed under our system (and had some help from offensively-weighted zone starts) to become someone we could trade and get something significant in return. Kass is already looking like a much better long-term investment too. That's a good pick.

As for Grabner: he stunk here. He stunk in Florida. He got put on waivers and got a wake up call. He said so himself. What more is there to say?
  • 1

Keswho.jpg


#98 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,966 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 08:33 PM

People keep saying Coho was a bad draft pick. Why?


I don't think it is a situation where he was a "bad" pick but rather that he isn't as good a player as some Hodgson fans like to make him out to be.

I have/had no gripes against the kid, I just don't see him as being the second coming of Wayne Crosby or Sidney Gretzky.


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

#99 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 17 January 2013 - 08:40 PM

I have/had no gripes against the kid, I just don't see him as being the second coming of Wayne Crosby or Sidney Gretzky.


regards,
G.


I don't remember anyone comparing him to Crosby or even saying he'll be anywhere near as good...

I remember people saying he'll be good in general though, is that what you're talking about?
  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#100 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,966 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:17 PM

I don't remember anyone comparing him to Crosby or even saying he'll be anywhere near as good...

I remember people saying he'll be good in general though, is that what you're talking about?


Yup. It was the tone of a lot of these super fans who could or would not see that this guy was going to be a decent player in the NHL, but he was not then (and maybe never will) be in the category of Sedin or Kesler.

I hope he does (relatively) well in Buffalo, and I think the Canucks did well in trading him.

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

#101 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,473 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:35 PM

I agree, but you can also make the argument that he really hasn't done much to really put them over the top. During their playoff run, other than Hamhuis, it was all Nonis/Burke guys. Again, I think he's done an average job, and I don't see anything he's done, or not done, that would warrant firing him.........that said, the goalie situation will be his legacy. If he doesn't handle it well, it could very well be the end of his time in Van


Every new GM inherits players from the previous regime. Who the new GM keeps and who he moves is what makes the team his. There isn't a single contract on the current team that wasn't signed by MG. Which means every player on the team is in fact his.
  • 0

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#102 5minutesinthebox

5minutesinthebox

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,684 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 09

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:39 PM

I agree, but you can also make the argument that he really hasn't done much to really put them over the top. During their playoff run, other than Hamhuis, it was all Nonis/Burke guys. Again, I think he's done an average job, and I don't see anything he's done, or not done, that would warrant firing him.........that said, the goalie situation will be his legacy. If he doesn't handle it well, it could very well be the end of his time in Van


What ?? Besides Hamhuis? Ehrhoff? Lapierre? Torres? Higgins? Malhotra (who had a lot to do with the teams success before his eye injury)? Samuelsson? Hell, even Tanev playing in the finals..
  • 0

#103 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:41 PM

Yup. It was the tone of a lot of these super fans who could or would not see that this guy was going to be a decent player in the NHL, but he was not then (and maybe never will) be in the category of Sedin or Kesler.

I hope he does (relatively) well in Buffalo, and I think the Canucks did well in trading him.

regards,
G.


I'd like to know where people got it in their heads that he was going to be the next Jesus? I never saw him play or anything all I can do is look at his stats in the OHL and they're good but they're not extraordinary.

Just for the recored I don't hate him, that's not what I'm getting at here.
  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#104 shazzam

shazzam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,542 posts
  • Joined: 26-July 07

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:57 PM

Gillis is just as over rated as Brian Burke when he took over the ducks. Ducks already had the pieces in place to win the cup.. burky made a couple deals and was hailed as all mighty.

Same as mg... except his team didn't win the cup. All theessential pieces where in place for mg to succeed


Yeah Burke had most of the pieces handed to him, same with Gillis. But that team does not win the cup without Pronger and Neidermayer.
  • 0

#105 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,473 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:00 PM

It's funny when people say that coho and grabner had no place on team when in reality they were never given a chance.

I remember watching countless times Grabner would just rocket past defensemen for breakaways when they were already in position yet he still blew right past them over the blueline with his crazy skating.

CoHo in limited minutes was scoring well and developing nicely and then gets traded for Kassian who is no where near where Coho was in terms of adapting and fitting in.

IMO I would rather have COHO and Grabner right now because our Depth on D is great even without Ballard and Kassian does nothing for us.

We need those guys.

In the end though everything that happened definitely happened and I have come to terms with it all and really don't care long as the Canucks ice a playoff team and make a good run.


Grabner was waiver eligible with our entire top six coming off a career year. Given his penchant for showing up to camp in poor shape, he wasn't going to make this team out of camp. He'd have to clear waivers to be sent to the farm just as he had to in Florida. He took to long to develop and was in position to be lost for nothing. Moving him was the smart move.

It really doesn't matter that you'd like to keep CoHo. The kid wasn't happy with his position on the team. With him, his father, and his agent harping on management about his ice time, it was only a matter of time before he was moved.
  • 0

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#106 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,532 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:08 PM

Seriously, nit-picking on Kassian already? He barely was wearing the Canucks jersey for half of a season! It takes time to develop a player, give him a chance! I'm sure he will improve during this season.

I agree with you but that is about the length of time they gave to Grabner and CoHo.
Actually,Grabner got twenty games - 11 points.
CoHo got 63 games - 33 points.
Both were better than half a point per game players as raw rookies here.

Edited by nuck nit, 17 January 2013 - 10:22 PM.

  • 0

#107 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,487 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:09 PM

If he blows this Loungo deal by not getting a scoring winger, a real prospect and a draft pick then he should be toast. He has already thrown away 2 very good players in Grabner and COHO for a bottom 6 forward, a number 7 dman and a "project". could you imagine if those 2 players were in the lineup today. Granted he's made some nice aquisitions in Hamius and Garrison, but is it just me, he seems not able to pull the trigger on landing a true top 6 forward(Booth is not a top 6, post concussion).
comments...


:picard:

Gillis is just as over rated as Brian Burke when he took over the ducks. Ducks already had the pieces in place to win the cup.. burky made a couple deals and was hailed as all mighty.

Same as mg... except his team didn't win the cup. All theessential pieces where in place for mg to succeed


Were they? Then why were we projected to plummet in his 1st year? Why was the headline in the Sun "The losing begins now" when he was hired?

The way he turned this team around from terrible to one of the best is impressive and speak volumes about his skills as a GM, his patience is his biggest asset.

As for his bad trades, explain to me why you would have kept Grabner who had no place on this team, when you desperately needed what Ballard brought, when 7 teams were interested.

Not sure why everyone is complaining about the Cody deal, he wanted out, MG built him into something he could move and he got a huge need of ours in Kassian and he will be a better player for our club moving forward.

A great GM, this team wouldn't be where we are today without him.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 17 January 2013 - 10:10 PM.

  • 1

zackass.png


#108 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,532 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:09 PM

It really doesn't matter that you'd like to keep CoHo. The kid wasn't happy with his position on the team. With him, his father, and his agent harping on management about his ice time, it was only a matter of time before he was moved.

Another blogger fed and conquered by media spin.
  • 0

#109 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,487 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:14 PM

Another blogger fed and conquered by media spin.


He. didn't. want. to. be. here.

It is really that simple, I just don't understand how people can't accept that.
  • 2

zackass.png


#110 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,351 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:17 PM

How does every single thread become about Hodgson somehow?

Some people really need to let it go. It's really getting pathetic. I can't imagine how you would deal with a breakup...
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#111 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,532 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:18 PM

Sure,Kassian.I am willing to believe you.
Give the board one -as in ONE- quote from Hodgson that stipulates that.
O-N-E.
1
UNO
  • 0

#112 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,532 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:19 PM

How does every single thread become about Hodgson somehow?
Some people really need to let it go. It's really getting pathetic.

We are waiting for you to stop.Give the word.
Until then,give the board ONE quote from Hodgson that he did not want to be a Vancouver Canuck.
Waiting AND I will remind you in every post you put up dissing Hodgson from here on in.
  • 0

#113 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,487 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:22 PM

Sure,Kassian.I am willing to believe you.
Give the board one -as in ONE- quote from Hodgson that stipulates that.
O-N-E.
1
UNO


Dynamics nuck, dynamics.

It's actually the exact opposite that proves it, why is it that everytime he is asked about it he balantantly brushes the question aside rather than answering yes and no, he has a reputation to protect (being widely considered to be loaded with character) and to admit that he wanted out would be a huge blemish on that no?

Don't understand why we can't just move on.
  • 0

zackass.png


#114 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,911 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:27 PM

Grabner was waiver eligible with our entire top six coming off a career year. Given his penchant for showing up to camp in poor shape, he wasn't going to make this team out of camp. He'd have to clear waivers to be sent to the farm just as he had to in Florida. He took to long to develop and was in position to be lost for nothing. Moving him was the smart move.

It really doesn't matter that you'd like to keep CoHo. The kid wasn't happy with his position on the team. With him, his father, and his agent harping on management about his ice time, it was only a matter of time before he was moved.


People also conveniently forget that at the time of the trade Hamhuis was not yet signed and was far from a certainty to sign in Van as the most sought after dman in free agency......so at the time the risk/reward on trading waiver eligible Grabner+ for Ballard was a lot different than it would have been had they had Hamhuis.
  • 0

#115 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,473 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:27 PM

Another blogger fed and conquered by media spin.


Tweeted by his own agent. Who also talked about the situation on the radio.
  • 1

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#116 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,532 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:29 PM

The opposite proves it? I see ..... nothing.
GM's have their media plants to spin their stories.They run the show.
You can move on.
Move on.
Hodgson will always have been a Canuck and the circumstances surrounding his being traded will always be debated.
  • 0

#117 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,532 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:30 PM

Tweeted by his own agent. Who also talked about the situation on the radio.

Tweeted what? Cody is asking to leave Vancouver?
Give it up ,Baggins.
  • 0

#118 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,487 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:35 PM

The opposite proves it? I see ..... nothing.
GM's have their media plants to spin their stories.They run the show.
You can move on.
Move on.
Hodgson will always have been a Canuck and the circumstances surrounding his being traded will always be debated.


:picard: Continue to deny reality as long as you want nuck, the reality is that had we not traded him then and not got the guy we wanted then Cody would have been moved in the offseason anyways, probably not for something we coveted as much we did Zack..

But just continue to deny the reality then.. that's fine too..
  • 1

zackass.png


#119 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,966 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:35 PM

The opposite proves it? I see ..... nothing.





regards,
G.
  • 1
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#120 Dazzle

Dazzle

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,455 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:36 PM

They also don't remember what it is like having a bad goalie. They just don't appreciate anything.

If they were here when Nonuts was in charge, completely unable to make any deal that might help the team they would know. Aside from the Luongo deal, which took a lot of people by surprise, most of his moves were complete failures.

Noronen, Smolinski, Carney, Weinrich...drafted PATRICK WHITE in the first round.

These newer posters probably became fans in the last few years when the Canucks were strong and so they just dont understand what it was like before, going from failure to failure with bad goalies. Constant playoff collapses nowhere near what has happened in the last few years. Granted the WCE days we played exciting hockey, we did not exactly keep goals out or win with much efficiency.

The team we have had the last few years is the best overall team I have ever seen on the Canucks, and yes I'm going back to the 80's when I say that, not to 2001 or 2002. You nitwits cant completely write off signings like Hamhuis or Garrison and then pine for Burke or Nonis when their signings were more often a Jan Bulis or Brian Smolinski than a Higgins, Lappierre, Malhotra, Hamhuis, Torres, Samuelsson, Ehrhoff, Garrison, etc etc. Gillis has done a LOT here, and going into a season nowadays is to be excited for the team and not just for some Nazzy/Bert plays or an end to end rush from Bure.

We should appreciate what we have here for God's sake because this type of team is rare, and any long term Canuck fan knows that down to their bones.


There was nothing wrong with drafting Patrick White in the first round - he was ranked around that position but he didn't pan out, which is a common phenomenon with draft players.

The kid had a terrific attitude when he came to camp but nobody knows why he was traded so quickly as he did to SJ. Also Gillis picked up MA Gragnani and let him go from UFA. Nobody knows why these players didn't succeed. It's one of the questions that I'd want to ask Gillis if I could.
  • 0
Posted Image --> THANKS EGATTI.

I have to say Dazzle's was the coolest. ROTFLOL





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.