Stamkos, Hall, Tavares, Stepan, Kadri, Duchene and Eberle were the only players at Hodgson's age (Born in 1990) or younger that got more points than him last year.
Yup. Of the guys listed, how many of them are better skaters? Of the players listed, how many of them are at the very least as good as Hodgson in the physical aspects of the game? Of the guys listed, how many of them are at least as good as Hodgson or better when it comes to defense? I believe that last season Hodgson was only better than one of the guys listed when it came to faceoffs (Eberle). This being said, the thing that does distinguish Eberle from Hodgson is that Eberle has scored 30+ goals and has scored over 70 points in a season.
And of the players listed, how many of them would any team take over Hodgson? I think Hodgson's not a bad player, but he certainly isn't in the class of any of those other guys (IMO), and there's a pretty significant drop-off from them to him.
Hodgson also had more goals last year than any single player on the Vancouver Canucks, while playing on the Buffalo Sabres, a team that is not considered by many to be packed with elite talent. Yes, he played with Vanek and that definitely helped his stats, but nobody expects Hodgson to be the second coming of Crosby and do it on his own, which is why he won't be paid as such. Hodgson at 4.5 per is not a stretch at all, especially if it's a bridge contract (2-3 years).
Are you are implying that the Canucks could really have used those goals? Or just that Hodgson is extremely talented and would have had success, despite being paired up with Vanek and Pominville?
Let's play some "What if?". Hodgson wasn't traded. Kesler was still injured last season and only played 17 games. No Kassian, etc. So who would be Hodgson's linemates from last year? On the right side there would be Gordon, Hansen, Higgins (if he isn't on the left side), Pinnizotto and Weise. On the left side you can choose from Booth (12 games), Higgins (assuming he's not on the left side), Raymond, Sestito. There's a few others here and there.
Tell us how Hodgson gets as many points with the Canucks as he did in Buffalo, without Vanek and Pominville.
The whole 58 points in 82 games for a first line centre isn't that big of a deal especially if you look at a team like Boston, who's top two centres David Krejci and Patrice Bergeron put up 33 and 32 points respectively (Hodgson put up 34).
The whole 58 points in 82 games for a first line center isn't that big of a deal especially if you are looking to make a case for Hodgson, but I'm okay with it.
Hodgson had one more point than Krejci and two more points than Bergeron. That's some pretty big production. In one or two games Hodgson scored one or two points. How'd the season work out for Buffalo with Hodgson scoring those two whole points more than Bergeron? (If you didn't hear, it didn't go so well for the Sabres.)
On the other hand, Krejci was 55.2% at faceoffs. Bergeron was 62.1%. Hodgson was 46.8%. (As a matter of fact, the Bruins had at least nine forwards who had a better faceoff per cent total than Hodgson.) If I'm Boston I'll take the increased chances of team wins because of better faceoff results over the couple of points that Hodgson got.
Krecji was also a +1 player while Bergeron was +24. I'd also take those numbers over Hodgson's two extra points (he finished at -4). Those two guys are also better skaters, etc. etc.
You look at Vancouver with Henrik Sedin who put up 45 points in 48 games and see how Vancouver did in the playoffs as opposed to Boston (if you didn't hear, it didn't go so well for the Canucks once again). Being on pace for 58 points in a season as a 22-23 year old centre who's been thrown to the wolves on a weak Buffalo team is somewhat decent IMO.
Not sure why the Canucks' results are relevant in this particular instance. You previously commented on how Hodgson barely out-pointed the two Bruins' centers, which suggests that Hodgson is a good offensive player. You then go on in this part to give a "points aren't everything" kind of comment regarding Sedin. If you are suggesting that a number one center doesn't have to score points to be successful, then you aren't supporting your case as Hodgson really doesn't do anything else, with any kind of success, than try to score.
What was the most critical thing lacking in the last few years for the Canucks in the playoffs? Lack of toughness gets a lot of votes. Poor coaching was the biggest problem to others. Lack of scoring, not being as healthy as the other team, and even NHL plots to prevent the Canucks from winning the Cup.
For me, aside from a few key injuries, the biggest lack has been in faceoff success (as indicated above). With Kesler and Malhotra gone the entire team got out of sync trying to make up for their missing ability (having Hamhuis out also kind of hurt in the finals). Would having Hodgson have improved the team's chances in any of these areas? No.
You can also complain about Hodgson sucking defensively but the kid will definitely pick up his game. He was an accomplished two-way centre in junior and with more time adjusting to a big role, he'll improve his faceoffs and defensive ability. There aren't a ton of players that get out of junior, becoming a first line centre, and keep up their two-way ability. As a first line centre, he was expected to keep up offensively with Vanek and Pominville instead of worrying about the other side of the ice.
You definately know that Hodgson will definately pick up his game how? He had time here to learn and improve at all aspects of the game, both at the AHL level, and when he was on the third line here with two extremely good two-way wingers and guys like Malhotra from whom to learn. It never seemed to happen. Your assertion seems to be more like wishful thinking.
As a center, or so I've been told, Hodgson should be the guy on that line who is most concerned about the other side of the ice. It's his job. Not saying he shouldn't try to score points, but of the forwards he should also be the one who is most aware of where the opposing players are and play to prevent their scoring chances as much as trying to score for his own team, no?
If he is this bad defensively 3 years from now, then you may have a point. He's slowly getting better, much to the disdain of Canucks homers worldwide and yes, he's worth 4-4.5 mil per season on a short-term deal, especially with the cap projected to go up steadily in the years to come.
If he's this bad defensively in 3 years "...you may have a point"? I believe this is a significant piece of the discussion. Buffalo doesn't want to pay Hodgson money now in hopes that he may get better defensively and at other aspects of the game in 3 years. Hodgson looks like he does want to be paid now for a level of play which he has yet to achieve, and may well never achieve.
Your personal assurances are not enough to change my mind about Hodgson. He is a gifted offensive player. He is also lacking in faceoff ability, skating, physicality and defensive ability. If I were the Sabres he wouldn't get anything over $3.5 million per for a three year term. I'm sure that Hodgson will then have earned a better deal because of his improved play, or he'll get it because there's a bottom feeder team which needs him and is willing to pay him an undeserved amount.
Edited by Gollumpus, 05 September 2013 - 11:56 PM.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.