Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Report] Hodgson Extensions talks started


Recommended Posts

Should the scenario played out how he is a PPG player on the Canucks and with the team unable to re-sign him.... he would have worth more than just a prospect when traded.

MG would have (should have) gotten Kassian + more. Instead we only got Kassian who may or may not be a regular NHLer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the best posts I have ever read on this board!

And now if you listen very closely rumours are starting to come out about Schneider. I wonder how long before the sheep start to turn against him. Someone will probably post some fancy stats or something about how he was sheltered and really isn't as good as we think he is.

I have watched Cody Hodgson play a lot of live hockey over the years and the kid has lots of positive attributes. In junior he played hurt his last year after the Canucks did him over with the whole back injury fiasco. He has worked himself into a very solid NHLer and I think that's awesome. Why be against him? Gillis is the one who hasn't acted like a grown up in the aftermath of the trade. Cody Hodgson, even though lots on here want to believe otherwise, has acted like a true professional in all of this and I'm sure he will continue to do so. Gillis can question his character all he likes but the reality is Cody has shown way more grace than Mr. Gillis has.

And it still irks me that the biggest hole the Canucks need to fill was his. It stinks that they are weak up the middle with a real good player gone for a winger who may be great but he's not there yet. There are some real prospects at C now but that isn't immediate relief and I wouldn't be surprised if they slide Guance to the wing anyway. I think he's going to be more suited to that position anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've already had a pretty lengthy back 'n forth, Smashian, but I see you've reverted to the same old rhetoric that lacks any substantive evidence - and wholesale ignores common sense. Shame.

With this year's Malholtra and Lou/Cory fiascos, I'd expect you of all posters to finally see Gillis for what he is - a guy prone to making up stories, implying and inferring, to deflect fault onto the players for his own poor asset management.

Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easily, he would have won the Calder had we kept him, playing 4-5 minutes less than any other rookie with comparable points on a 3rd line role.

Where the others were all playing top line minutes with PP time.

He will indeed get north of $4.5 million because he really is a good player no matter what we think of him. My gripe is the return, Gillis could have should have pried a pick as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really its your theory that lacks common sense, without going into detail and a huge debate like last time.

Lets break this down. Gillis best interest is making this team better, and improving this hockey team. We can all see at the time of the deal that Hodgson was the better player with the same high upside, not to mention it was a player that he chose himself & really liked. We saw all through the struggles with the injury how Gillis back Hodgson, and how he didn't give up on Hodgson.

Now finally after all the wait, the loyalty from MG finally paid off as Hodgson is finally here contributing, and having a good year, the team is benefiting from having him on the team, & he is benefitting (or so we thought) from being on the team.

An now suddenly out of nowhere after everything that had transpired, Gillis just decides to trade him? For no reason?

I'm not buying it, this was a Gillis guy, he was a Gillis pick. If MG had his choice he would have held onto Hodgson.

I just don't see where you disconnect from this. I just see you making up theories to again, like I said in the post you replied to, further your Anti-Gillis agenda.

And btw, Cory Schneider was traded cause of Ownership, not because MG just woke up one day and decided to trade him, like you think he did with Cody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not interested in a huge debate either, but I will go through some points of your post that I found interesting.

I'm really just not into a total rehash with you Smashian. Been there, done it, ran through all the stats line by line, all the quotes line by line, and if you're truly suddenly back into imagining that Gillis didn't throw Hodgson under a bus just like he has so many other players, well... you're just blind I guess. Gilils got bad press/attention for the Hodgson trade, so he inferred and implied character problems against the kid to deflect the negative attention. Unprofessional and classless, sure, but human enough too, and so easily "seen" if one cares to do more than just follow the sheep herd. Gillis played you (and others), and you just can't see it, shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF are you even talking about?

Hodgson was a sure thing whereas Kassian may or may not be a sure thing. So it's obvious that Cody has higher value, meaning MG should have gotten way more in return. I don't know how anyone could be arguing against that point.

So you like trading away a top-6 player for a grinder?

I'm guessing you also think that Pittsburgh won the Naslund - Stojanov trade, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not interested in a huge debate either, but I will go through some points of your post that I found interesting.

See again this is your theory, your theory is that Gillis just made this move and there were no behind the scenes issues, but that just makes no sense, its not logical when you consider the history of Gillis and Hodgson and what Gillis best interest is as general manager of this club.

It really goes against the logic of the situation and Gillis's role as I have said.

If even lets say there were issues and Gillis came out and said this like he did, big deal. He's coming out and telling the truth, to explain what happened, he didn't come out and name any specifics, didn't even say point blank that Cody requested a trade, and didn't go into detail. And considering he only ever went into the subject that deep once (and it wasn't even that deep) he handled it for the most part in a pretty respectful manner as far as telling the truth to the media and fans, the fans who deserve to know what is going on I might add.

And people get called out all the time in this league way worse than that, Cody can suck it up, he has like the good kid he has, its really just Anti-Gillis guys like you that continue to dwell on it.

It seems like you think Gillis did a bad thing with the trade (putting the Cody part aside for a moment)

The bottom line is, Potential and value aren't equal, players who are great players now are more valuable then young players with the potential to be great players.

What I am saying is, Gillis couldn't have gotten a 1st liner for Hodgson, or anything outstanding if we wanted a now asset, like someone in there prime.

Instead Gillis targeted a young asset for young asset deal, as we know he had a number of players he wanted and one of them came available it was obvious Zack.

I think this was actually a smart idea either way, as we heard Nonis say in regards to Luongo, you trade young assets for other young assets. And in the cap world thats even more paramount to have cost controlled players contributing, thats why I believe it was smart of Gillis to acquire another young player that was at a similar stage in there development. Even more so when you consider our cap situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really its your theory that lacks common sense, without going into detail and a huge debate like last time.

Lets break this down. Gillis best interest is making this team better, and improving this hockey team. We can all see at the time of the deal that Hodgson was the better player with the same high upside, not to mention it was a player that he chose himself & really liked. We saw all through the struggles with the injury how Gillis back Hodgson, and how he didn't give up on Hodgson.

Now finally after all the wait, the loyalty from MG finally paid off as Hodgson is finally here contributing, and having a good year, the team is benefiting from having him on the team, & he is benefitting (or so we thought) from being on the team.

An now suddenly out of nowhere after everything that had transpired, Gillis just decides to trade him? For no reason?

I'm not buying it, this was a Gillis guy, he was a Gillis pick. If MG had his choice he would have held onto Hodgson.

I just don't see where you disconnect from this. I just see you making up theories to again, like I said in the post you replied to, further your Anti-Gillis agenda.

And btw, Cory Schneider was traded cause of Ownership, not because MG just woke up one day and decided to trade him, like you think he did with Cody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bolded/underlined part is precisely why there's no point in rehashing this with you.

You describe Gillis as having done precisely what I've proposed (inferred and implied just enough to deflect the negative attention onto the player, hoping people like you would fill in the blanks with notions Hodgson must have "demanded" a trade, been a prima donna problem, yadda, yadda), but you just can't accept that you've been played by a professional manipulator, promoter and story seller (qualities, incidentally, Gillis has built a career on and, at least in part, was hired as the GM to perform).

And when challenged to admit that you've merely attributed to Hodgson what you imagine to be true, you slip into other threads of theoretical thoughts, like oh gee, now let's do the Hodgson versus Kassian debate... Or maybe Gillis "had no choice" to trade Hodgson last season due to cap issues (which he couldn't have known at the time would be applicable) next season, because that rationale somehow makes sense in light of all the other arguably bonehead moves Gillis has pulled to negatively effect the Cancuks' cap situation (and prospect pool, btw)...

So, yeah, you have already acknowledged that the one-liners you've posted about the kid are your theories not facts, describing for yourself how Gillis played you into conjuring up such theories in the first place, and the rest of the circular exchange we've already had. Can't imagine anyone, even you, is genuinely interested in a rehash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...