Patrick Kane Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 I love you mikeburn. And all the Hodgson lovers. Hodgson > Kassian /thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeburn Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 I love you mikeburn. And all the Hodgson lovers. Hodgson > Kassian /thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Hawks fan from Vancouver here. Hodgson is sure doing great in Buffalo. He definitely looks to be doing better than Kassian at the moment but as I'm sure everyone knows if Kassian's offensive skills can catch up to his physicality he could become one of the very few true power forwards in the league. The type of player every team wishes they had but are next to impossible to find in this day and age. The Canucks could win this trade yet. Was also just imagining how awesome it would be if the Hawks could somehow pry Hodgson away from the Sabres at the deadline and then face the Canucks in the playoffs. What a crazy series that would be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 You seem to have missed it, but it's not just in the offensive categories that Hodgson compares well to how the Sedins performed during their own first three years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeburn Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Alright mike, I think I get the just of what you are saying. My comparison wasn't Cody in his early years, to the Sedins in there early years. That's you comparison that you keep forcing down my throat. It is impossible to make a prediction between Cody and the Sedins, because the Sedins have acomplished far more. And Cody still has his career ahead of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbochan Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Losing With Pride Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Stojanov for Naslund Neely for Pederson Hodgson for Kassian at least we won one of those trades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 I know we lost this trade but I don't think the level of the trade should be the sole reason Kassian stays in the line up.I think he's better served to learn in Chicago playing 1st line minutes and the PP and structuring a physical regimine to suit what type of power forward he will become (picking his spots ie not erratic>body checking and fighting)...plus we can bring him up during the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InTheCrease Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 I know we lost this trade but I don't think the level of the trade should be the sole reason Kassian stays in the line up.I think he's better served to learn in Chicago playing 1st line minutes and the PP and structuring a physical regimine to suit what type of power forward he will become (picking his spots ie not erratic>body checking and fighting)...plus we can bring him up during the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I honestly believe there were "issues" before the trade. Like with the Linden situation - despite Linden later claiming AV was a great coach for him, I still believe there were "issues" between player and coach, at least from the coach's end. But issues do not, by definition, equate to a player requesting a trade or management being somehow forced to cede to the wishes of a 22 year old newb. I can see Gillis declining to answer a straight out question as a tactic for implying the contrary answer without actually lying (ie: "I can't answer whether Hodgson wanted a trade, hint hint"). I can also see Hodgson's camp, as things erupted, declining to answer questions that might have fueled the flames (ie: "if we outright call Gillis a liar then this gets even worse, and besides Gillis hasn't actually lied, only implied an untruth..."). I can even see a 22 year old taking the advice of his agent, et. al., after having been based by former mgmt and just repeating the positive, polite, professional rhetoric no matter how he may have wished to say something otherwise. The kid wants a future in the NHL - having a fight with his former team's GM through the media isn't exactly gonna help his career, or reputation. Yeah, I can see all these characters being human enough to distort the truth and play word games within the media, hoping to sway public opinion one way or another. And Gillis' comments sure have worked to sway the anti-Hodgson movement... For example, it's got you putting words in Winter's mouth and imagining that "different goals" was code for Hodgson not wanting to win but instead wanting more ice-time [at the expense of the team, presumably]. Rather than presuming Gillis didn't straight out say Hodgson asked for a trade because he was shielding a kid who he'd just entirely bashed in the media (with all the "we made him look better than he was" stuff), why not ask the better question - if Hodgson asked for a trade, why wouldn't Gillis just say so? Why did Gillis instead say that management "decided" Hodgson wanted a trade? But even IF Hodgson wanted or asked for a trade, my brain keeps going back to the fact that he was a 22 year old newb - where was management being management? Parents are the adults, not the kids. Canucks needed a quality center in the system who has the potential to one day replace the retired Sedins - if Hodgson really did ask for a trade, management ought to have told him who was boss, not caved into the little guy. This kid only had a good rep before the Canucks (which you'd think was part of why the Canucks drafted him?), was never talked about has having an attitude or primadonna illusions before the trade, and has only been spoken of favourably by his current team. This suggests any "issues" he had were Canuck-specific. And to the extent the Canucks have had "issues" with other players (Mitchel, Ballard, Kesler, etc.), it kinda paves the way for it being very plausible that Canucks management is the common-denominator in their own "issues". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Last year I watched a Youtube compilation (titled Cody Hodgson "so good") of his goals from when he was a Canuck and he had some pretty sweet goals as a 'nuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeburn Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Gillis did say so. He flat out said there were on-going issue. That he had been dealing with for a long time, and they eventually "made the determination" in otherwords realized that he didn't want to be here. And when he said "we made him into something he could move" To me that says, the 'determination' was made before the season. And the entire year they tried to showcase his offensive talents as best they could. I think Hodgson asked for a trade after the Finals. Considering he got little icetime, and in that article I posted, when Winter talks about him keeping his head up, and that he talked to Claude Lemeiux. It seems like that the case, that he didn't see his opportunity here. I don't blame him for requesting a trade. It makes sense, he is stuck behind two star players. But I don't like how people blame MG for giving him away like this situation was salvagable, and there was a possibility that he had a future here. You can't push someone around forever and just decline his request for a trade. Cause it seems like they already did. Or atleast delayed that request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpt Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 That was a friggin sick goal. Reminds me of that sick Jonathan Toews goal where he went through four defenders, dangling them one by one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monteeun Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Detroit had more goals than Pittsburgh in the 2009 Stanley cup playoffs. Still lost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 That's where you lose me. In response to my query why Gillis didn't simply straight out say that Hodgson wanted a trade, you state that he "did say so". But he actually didn't. What Gillis did say is that there were "issues" and that they (management) "made the determination" that Hodgson wanted a trade. As to be expected of a man who has made a career of handling the media, Gillis said a lot without actually saying anything. A few tidbit hints here and there of what those "issues" might possibly have been, and Gillis very effectively lead you (and others, of course) to infer Hodgson was a player who caused problems and wanted out - without actually saying as much. He only implied a thing, it's others who have interpreted to mean "in other words..." I'm open to other plausible options, but the only rationales I can think of for why Gillis didn't outright say "Hodgson asked for a trade (now, end of year, whatever) and so we worked to showcase and jumped at the best deal when it came up..." are: 1) Gillis wanted to protect the kid from backlash for having asked for a trade; or 2) Hodgson didn't ask for a trade (to be effective then or for down the road) or otherwise say that he wanted out. Option #1 is possible, but difficult to believe. To the extent that the balance of Gilli's commentary went effectively to discredit Hodgson's character (see: suggestive "issues") and talents (see: showcasing), and that he then later did/said nothing to diminish the backlash he'd caused for the kid, it is difficult to imagine Gillis didn't outright say Hodgson asked for a trade because he was trying to protect the kid's public rep. Which leaves me stuck on option #2 as the only viable option - Hodgson didn't ask for a trade or otherwise say he wanted out. So, why would Gillis deliberately imply Hodgson did ask to get out if the kid hadn't? Easy - Gillis was facing negative public opinion about the trade, so he deflected it onto the player in the question. Gillis did what so many of us do - rationalized his own decisions and his own actions on the basis that someone else is to fault. Incidentally, if true, this wouldn't be the first time Canucks' management handled negative public opinion over a decision by implying fault lay with the player. For example, mgmt implied Morrison wasn't signed only because the player chose not to accept the Canucks' offer, inferring Morrison wanted too much. The difference between Hodgson and Morrison is that Hodgson is truly a kid and was likely advised to keep his head down and just move on, while Morrison the vet called Canucks out for it - Morrison couldn't have declined the Canuck's offer because there had never been one. All in, I don't deny the possibility that Hodgson did want a trade (frankly, I wouldn't want to play under AV either ), I simply recognize that there is no evidence that the kid ever said he wanted out of Vancouver or requested a trade. Concurrently I recognize that Gillis stood to gain from implying otherwise (deflect onto the player), didn't have anything to lose from doing so (no one can actually call him a liar, he only implied after all ), and has done the same thing to another player (see: the imaginary offer to Morrison)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 ^ Saying you want more opportunity =/= want to be traded Besides, how would the Sabres feel if they got a player who didn't want to be there? The only choice Hodgson has is to say he doesn't want to talk about the past and just wanna focus on the future. Complaining about the previous team can only make him look bad. As some previous poster has pointed out, the Canucks management is more than willing to use the media to make the masses believe their side of a story more than perhaps what the truth may be, eg. Brendan Morrison non-contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeburn Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 You say that #1 is difficult to believe because he didn't say why he wants to keep that private, right?. Actually he did. He said in his presser "I chose not to speak about what happened behind the scenes because I expect our players to be able to come in and have the opportunity to speak to me without it being made public, and I am going to continue with that. But there clearly were issues that were on-going. I've spent more time on Cody's issues than every other player combined on our team in the last 3 years" <snip> I guess what this comes down to is how he said it. Cause I think anyone can clearly see that he is saying Cody wasn't happy in Vancouver and didn't want to be here, and wanted to be moved. Is it because he doesn't come out in a blanket statement and say word for word "Cody Hodgson request a trade" that you don't believe it? I think anyone who follows this team realizes MG likes to keep things under wraps, and talks in a sophisticated way, because he doesn't like making blanket statements that reveal things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Karlsson Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 ^ Saying you want more opportunity =/= want to be traded Besides, how would the Sabres feel if they got a player who didn't want to be there? The only choice Hodgson has is to say he doesn't want to talk about the past and just wanna focus on the future. Complaining about the previous team can only make him look bad. As some previous poster has pointed out, the Canucks management is more than willing to use the media to make the masses believe their side of a story more than perhaps what the truth may be, eg. Brendan Morrison non-contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Well Mike if we are really arguing about interpitation of how MG speaks then I guess this is over. I also find it funny how your continued response is that MG didn't say it point blank in the exact words you would like to here so it didn't happen. Then when I bring up the fact that Cody point blank dodged the question a number of times (Which 100% hints he asked for a trade, and that he just doesn't want to admit it) you can make up some excuse for it. Thats fine. Cody didn't want to be here, it is clear as day. And if you don't believe it just think about what would have happened had we not traded him. The issues would only continue and if we didn't trade him he would have made the RFA process a disaster and held out, or made it known that he wanted a trade. Anyways, I wish the kid well, loved him when he was here, defended him when people were calling him a bust, and unfortunately there was just no place for him here long term and he wanted to move on to somewhere that he could get those opportunties. Good on him, more power to him in Buffalo and I'm with what we got in Zack. That's really all there is too it, we have to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeburn Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Well Mike if we are really arguing about interpitation of how MG speaks then I guess this is over. I also find it funny how your continued response is that MG didn't say it point blank in the exact words you would like to here so it didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.