Too Early to call Kassian a dissapointment?

[canucksnihilist]

If a legit centre could ever be found - Schroeder could ever stay healthy...

Playing with Richardson would hold back anyone... If kass is ever going to be a legit 3rd line player he needs a better centre. Let alone becoming more than that... Baby steps here...

This was schroeders year - hit by puck breaks ankle, and rushed back so was susceptible to more serious injury... Does anyone know wtf is going on with him?

Zach needs a centre like schr... Until then don't get too excited. Zach can't make a line, he is a complement player... And potentially still a really good one

[Tangerines]

As tempting as it may be to throw our best young players on the same line, they would get burned so hard by skilled veterans defensively and offensively. We need to integrate and mix in our youth with our veterans, and our skill with our toughness. That's why this lineup for next season works best:

Sedin - Sedin - Kassian

Santorelli - Kesler - Higgins

Burrows - Horvat - Booth

Hansen - Richardson - Jensen

Each young kid has a great mentor on their line (Kassian gets the Sedins, Horvat has Burrows to help defensively, Booth to help offensively and Jensen has fellow Dane Hansen along with a Cup winner who plays great defence).

Love this line up for next year but where's Schroeder? I would personally swap Jensen for Schroeder. Jensen should play one more season in the AHL because we want him to be a top six guy in the future and he ain't going to get lots of top six minutes or PP time playing on the fourth line for the Canucks.

[Plaguez]

Hodgson is going to be what he is...being. A 1-2 line center on a mediocre team, with very little drive or motivation to bring his team to the next level.

Kassian is still up in the air. The man has really really slick hands if you watch how he passes, sheet even when hes skating his head is moving around watching his team.

He is big, tough, has a really nasty mean streak when his team is getting manhandled, can pass on the level of a person named Daniel or Henrik, and genuinely Is loved in the dressing room.

Hodgson was useless to our future goals. And not `liked`. Kassian is just getting started, learning how to be responsible defensively while maintaining offensive zone pressure.

Pretty sure `responsible defensively`isnt in Cody`s vocabulary.

A lot of bs in one post. You know nothing of what motivates Hodgson. Seemed pretty determined to get to the NHL when he was playing through intense back pain during camp when the Canuck doctors misdiagnosed him.

Too many people in here seem to feel the need to slag and post lies about Hodgson to somehow increase Kassian's value. It doesn't. Stop.

Until one of you can post an actual source with the words that Hodgson said he wants out from someone who would know, Gillis, Gilman or Hodgson, then shut up about it. You are being very typically CDC by taking someone's guess and quoting it for fact.

Hodgson was traded for Kassian simply because the Canucks had no size and Gillis felt we were being pushed around. That is all. Anything else is hearsay and conjecture and should be a banable offense to continue to slander Hodgson.

If you want to promote the idea that Kassian is great do it on his own laurels and numbers, not by slagging a kid who has captain material written all over him. It's a dick move.

[Nino]

As tempting as it may be to throw our best young players on the same line, they would get burned so hard by skilled veterans defensively and offensively. We need to integrate and mix in our youth with our veterans, and our skill with our toughness. That's why this lineup for next season works best:

Sedin - Sedin - Kassian

Santorelli - Kesler - Higgins

Burrows - Horvat - Booth

Hansen - Richardson - Jensen

Each young kid has a great mentor on their line (Kassian gets the Sedins, Horvat has Burrows to help defensively, Booth to help offensively and Jensen has fellow Dane Hansen along with a Cup winner who plays great defence).

I can't see booth being with the team next year and don't think kass will be ready for the first line by then. He's getting better because he has to work for it, in your plans he would have been on the first line at the start of this season and prob playing in the AHL by now.

[prana16]

You mean in your opinion, Hodgson is better. Big difference.

Just because you have an opinion, like all of us, it doesn't make it reality.

No, I mean at every measurable level other than height and weight Hodgson has been and is a better more valuable and more successful hockey player.

Henrik Sedin is also a better hockey player than Higgens. Is that also "my opinion"

Saying Hodgson is better than Kassian is a statement of objective fact on every level but penalty minutes and fights. Thats not the same as saying omgz i love cody.. or i hate kass he is the d3v1lz!!!!

[Tangelos]

If a legit centre could ever be found - Schroeder could ever stay healthy...

Playing with Richardson would hold back anyone... If kass is ever going to be a legit 3rd line player he needs a better centre. Let alone becoming more than that... Baby steps here...

This was schroeders year - hit by puck breaks ankle, and rushed back so was susceptible to more serious injury... Does anyone know wtf is going on with him?

Zach needs a centre like schr... Until then don't get too excited. Zach can't make a line, he is a complement player... And potentially still a really good one

Richardson has nearly double the points Zack has. Based off your logic, I'd say Kassian is the one holding Richardson back

[Absent Canuck]

No, I mean at every measurable level other than height and weight Hodgson has been and is a better more valuable and more successful hockey player.

Henrik Sedin is also a better hockey player than Higgens. Is that also "my opinion"

Saying Hodgson is better than Kassian is a statement of objective fact on every level but penalty minutes and fights. Thats not the same as saying omgz i love cody.. or i hate kass he is the d3v1lz!!!!

This post makes no sense at all.

[Absent Canuck]

Richardson has nearly double the points Zack has. Based off your logic, I'd say Kassian is the one holding Richardson back

Richardson does not have double the goals or double the fights or hits that Kassian has. That is a lie.

How old is Richardson anyways?

Edit

Richardson is 28 years old. He is 6 years older than Kassian.

Kassian has more goals, fights hits and is a lot younger. Your argument is that Richardson has a few more assists and therefore that stat alone makes up for all the rest?

What is the point of having a discussion if you refuse to be objective? Its a waste of time.

[Gollumpus]

No, I mean at every measurable level other than height and weight Hodgson has been and is a better more valuable and more successful hockey player.

In every measurable way which you are willing to acknowledge.

Henrik Sedin is also a better hockey player than Higgens. Is that also "my opinion"

It is your opinion, and in this particular case, you are correct. It also shows that there is truth in the old adage, "Every once in a while, even a blind, three-legged pig will find an acorn".

Saying Hodgson is better than Kassian is a statement of objective fact on every level but penalty minutes and fights. Thats not the same as saying omgz i love cody.. or i hate kass he is the d3v1lz!!!!

You are perhaps a bit confused as to the nature of an objective fact. This is my opinion, and it is also an objective fact.

regards,

G.

[Ugli Fruit]

I gave you a plus 1 for that. You used to be a huge Cody fan, yet you are willing to be objective now. Good for you.

Cody will be a 60 point guy, but his speed and strength will never allow him to be a first line center or anything other than a play maker.

The people who defend Kassian, do so because he is now a Canuck, and has LOADS of potential in all areas of the game. Physically, mentally and otherwise. Hodgson does not have that kind of room to improve. He just isnt built like Kassian. What you see at age 24 physically is what you get. He is fully developed.

Cody is already smart. Therefore he is not going to get noticeably 'wiser' . He is just going to pick is spots better , as in cheating out of the zone up ice, and his defensive zone coverage. He already knows he cannot compete on speed so he uses his brains to do so.

Kassian is just raw skill. He can end up being Raffi Torres. Sure. But he can also become Todd Bertuzzi very easily and in fact i think he will get there. Hopefully he will give up the floating and dumb penalties much sooner than Big Bert did.

Lets stop reliving Hodgsons time here. Lets stop hating Kassian just to prove to our ego's that Gillis made a mistake in trading him and he was 'jacked around' .

Who cares anymore. Lets get behind Zack and just wish him well!

Yeah, it's not like there are any small players who are elite in this league.

I for one am not making any conclusions about this trade even now, since to do so would be unwarranted. That said, if you think Hodgson will be a 60 point guy and not even a first liner, you need to give your head a shake. The guy may be small, but he has a hell of a shot, amazing vision and great passing ability. He has the potential be a first liner in his prime on almost any team.

In 5 years, I'm pretty sure Hodgson will be captaining some team and Kassian will be tearing it up on whatever team he's on. The only reason this trade occurred was because Hodgson wanted out. Both are incredible assets and we can only speculate for the next few years if this trade was worth it, when both players actually develop fully.

[Profanity]

No, I mean at every measurable level other than height and weight Hodgson has been and is a better more valuable and more successful hockey player.

Henrik Sedin is also a better hockey player than Higgens. Is that also "my opinion"

Saying Hodgson is better than Kassian is a statement of objective fact on every level but penalty minutes and fights. Thats not the same as saying omgz i love cody.. or i hate kass he is the d3v1lz!!!!

That's nothing objective about your statement. In fact, it's more subjective than ever.

[The Lock]

No, I mean at every measurable level other than height and weight Hodgson has been and is a better more valuable and more successful hockey player.

Henrik Sedin is also a better hockey player than Higgens. Is that also "my opinion"

Saying Hodgson is better than Kassian is a statement of objective fact on every level but penalty minutes and fights. Thats not the same as saying omgz i love cody.. or i hate kass he is the d3v1lz!!!!

um... lol?

1. When you're talking about the intangibles like smarts, it's not based on fact. It's based on opinion. You cannot mathematically say someone's smarter than someone else. IQ tests only test you on how good you are at doing IQ tests. Some people are smart with school, while ther people are smart with fixing vehicles, etc.

2. Most of Kassians skill is natural. Most of Hodgson's skill comes from his smarts. You can't really compare the 2 to begin with.

3. If we want to start talking about intangibles and throwing the first 2 statements out the window, then, in my opinion, the only things Hodgson is better at than Kassian is smarts. He's not better at skating, grit, fights, size, or pure skill. When Hodgson is not producing points, he's a pylon.

[Ugli Fruit]

In every measurable way which you are willing to acknowledge.

It is your opinion, and in this particular case, you are correct. It also shows that there is truth in the old adage, "Every once in a while, even a blind, three-legged pig will find an acorn".

You are perhaps a bit confused as to the nature of an objective fact. This is my opinion, and it is also an objective fact.

regards,

G.

You haven't said one thing about the actual matter at hand: Is Hodgson "objectively" better than Kassian?

I really wish all you schmucks would stop with all this "objectivity" crap. We are all human and this is a message board. You really think objectivity exists here?

Hodgson has put up more points than Kassian, in more minutes. Simple. We can talk about point production rate, individual playing style, help from linemates, injuries, etc. But the bottom line is, Hodgson produced more points than Kassian. Not sure how much more "objective" we really can get given a comparison as absurd as this.

Kassian doesn't produce at a high rate, or really, any rate, because he still is learning. If you watch him out there, he still does dumb stuff very often. However, he is still learning, and his size somewhat makes up for his blunders. Hodgson is a smarter player who is clearly more mature on the ice than Kassian. His lack of physical size seems to be his biggest drawback.

In terms of raw skill or talent, I daresay Hodgson outclasses Kassian by a long shot. In terms of long-term value to their respective clubs, Kassian is obviously a better asset since big, skilled wingers are a rare commodity, at least here in Vancouver.

You seem rather incapacitated by your homerism and its resulting tendency to defend current Canucks and flame former Canucks. I don't blame you, but face it: the team was forced to trade Hodgson and this meant that they would have to lose out at least slightly on the ensuing trade.

[WonderTwinPowers]

Kids on pace for 17 goals playing mostly 3rd/4th line minutes while working on his defensive game. Seems like an improvement to me, hope he keeps it up

[The Lock]

I really wish all you schmucks would stop with all this "objectivity" crap. We are all human and this is a message board. You really think objectivity exists here?

That's really going to depend on who is making the arguments and how they get their point across. You can most certainly get an objective statement from some people on these forums. Unfortunately, most of those opinions get overshadowed by the ones who think their opinion is "objective".

[Ugli Fruit]

um... lol?

1. When you're talking about the intangibles like smarts, it's not based on fact. It's based on opinion. You cannot mathematically say someone's smarter than someone else. IQ tests only test you on how good you are at doing IQ tests. Some people are smart with school, while ther people are smart with fixing vehicles, etc.

2. Most of Kassians skill is natural. Most of Hodgson's skill comes from his smarts. You can't really compare the 2 to begin with.

3. If we want to start talking about intangibles and throwing the first 2 statements out the window, then, in my opinion, the only things Hodgson is better at than Kassian is smarts. He's not better at skating, grit, fights, size, or pure skill. When Hodgson is not producing points, he's a pylon.

1. That is a load of crap. So if you can't see it, hence if it's "intangible", there is no such thing as factual analysis, only opinion? Way to make your argument self-supporting there.

It's pretty obvious Hodgson is a smarter player than Kassian. This is just a widely accepted fact by any relevant person so I won't even touch on this again.

2. While I agree the comparison is absurd (mentioned in my previous post), this is also another steaming pile of crap. So Kassian is naturally talented while Hodgson's "smarts" somehow gives him first-round quality hockey sense, shot and passing ability. Even if that made sense, then why is Kassian's natural talent not shining through?

3. We have been talking about "intangibles". Both you and I, in this conversation. But ok.

So, basically, you're saying if a point-producer is not producing, he is useless. Wow! You're a genius. And according to you, if Kassian, who is "naturally talented", is not producing, as long as he is fighting people, and hitting, and doing things $500k plugs do every night, he is fine? What a joke. So Kassian gets a free pass when he doesn't produce because he is big and can hit people, and Hodgson doesn't because he is small.

Let's call this fair for the sake of argument. Kassian is not meant to be a plug 4th liner who hits and fights. None of that matters. His role is to be a big, intimidating scoring winger, like Lucic or Bertuzzi, not Tom Sestito. You are basically saying Kassian can be a Sestito and that is still better than having a struggling Hodgson or Hodgson equivalent. In the overarching result of the trade then, this team could receive another Steve Bernier and that would still be better than Hodgson because, hey, we got a big, physical guy who can hit!

Both players have to become point producers. This organization took the trade knowing Kassian would take longer to develop. Right now Hodgson is producing more and is doing better at his own role than Kassian is. That won't mean anything in the long run, but you really have your head pretty far up yourself.

That's really going to depend on who is making the arguments and how they get their point across. You can most certainly get an objective statement from some people on these forums. Unfortunately, most of those opinions get overshadowed by the ones who think their opinion is "objective".

Exactly: so why bother?

[Gollumpus]

A lot of bs in one post.

Thank you for posting this warning to anyone who might read your post. I can vouch for its veracity.

You know nothing of what motivates Hodgson. Seemed pretty determined to get to the NHL when he was playing through intense back pain during camp when the Canuck doctors misdiagnosed him.

Are you an authority on what motivates Hodgson? If so, how? I am truly curious on this point.

As I recall the situation with Hodgson's back: he injured himself and his doctor mis-diagnosed the injury. The Canuck doctors looked at it, saw the same thing as Hodgson's doctor, and agreed with the first opinion. Hodgson went to see a specialist, and the specialist also mis-diagnosed the injury. Finally, the Canucks doctors looked at it again and found the real problem.

So yes, the Canuck doctors did mis-diagnose Hodgson's injury, once. Hodgson's doctors mis-diagnosed the injury, twice.

Too many people in here seem to feel the need to slag and post lies about Hodgson to somehow increase Kassian's value. It doesn't. Stop.

I agree with your sentiments, in principle. I would note that there is an equal amount of slagging of Kassian (if not more), mostly because he was the guy who got traded for Hodgson.

I would also note that if someone points out an inadequacy in Hodgson's game, that is not necessarily slagging him but rather, is merely pointing out what prana would call "an objective fact".

Until one of you can post an actual source with the words that Hodgson said he wants out from someone who would know, Gillis, Gilman or Hodgson, then shut up about it. You are being very typically CDC by taking someone's guess and quoting it for fact.

I suspect that Hodgson will never speak to this issue, unless there was some sort of gain in it. I do not say this as a criticism. I believe he is being politically astute by trying to claim the high-ground.

I do believe that Hodgson did want out. This is something which I have mentioned in previous threads. I think Hodgson saw that he wasn't going to get top-6 minutes any time soon (no Kesler back issues, yet). Going to another team would probably give him a better chance to meet his career objectives. Perhaps he got moved sooner than he thought it would happen (like after the playoffs).

Note: I do not say this as a criticism. I believe he wants to do what he felt was best for his career. I do not begrudge him for thinking this way (assuming this is what his thoughts were).

Hodgson was traded for Kassian simply because the Canucks had no size and Gillis felt we were being pushed around. That is all. Anything else is hearsay and conjecture and should be a banable offense to continue to slander Hodgson.

Oh come on, couldn't we just horse whip the people who have an opinion with which you do not agree?

If you want to promote the idea that Kassian is great do it on his own laurels and numbers, not by slagging a kid who has captain material written all over him. It's a dick move.

Handled above. Once again, in principle I agree.

regards,

G.

[The Lock]

1. That is a load of crap. So if you can't see it, hence if it's "intangible", there is no such thing as factual analysis, only opinion? Way to make your argument self-supporting there.

It's pretty obvious Hodgson is a smarter player than Kassian. This is just a widely accepted fact by any relevant person so I won't even touch on this again.

2. While I agree the comparison is absurd (mentioned in my previous post), this is also another steaming pile of crap. So Kassian is naturally talented while Hodgson's "smarts" somehow gives him first-round quality hockey sense, shot and passing ability. Even if that made sense, then why is Kassian's natural talent not shining through?

3. We have been talking about "intangibles". Both you and I, in this conversation. But ok.

So, basically, you're saying if a point-producer is not producing, he is useless. Wow! You're a genius. And according to you, if Kassian, who is "naturally talented", is not producing, as long as he is fighting people, and hitting, and doing things $500k plugs do every night, he is fine? What a joke. So Kassian gets a free pass when he doesn't produce because he is big and can hit people, and Hodgson doesn't because he is small.

Let's call this fair for the sake of argument. Kassian is not meant to be a plug 4th liner who hits and fights. None of that matters. His role is to be a big, intimidating scoring winger, like Lucic or Bertuzzi, not Tom Sestito. You are basically saying Kassian can be a Sestito and that is still better than having a struggling Hodgson or Hodgson equivalent. In the overarching result of the trade then, this team could receive another Steve Bernier and that would still be better than Hodgson because, hey, we got a big, physical guy who can hit!

Both players have to become point producers. This organization took the trade knowing Kassian would take longer to develop. Right now Hodgson is producing more and is doing better at his own role than Kassian is. That won't mean anything in the long run, but you really have your head pretty far up yourself.

Exactly: so why bother?

1. Why the hate? All you did there was just bash me without anything to back yourself up. Prove that intangibles are about facts and not opinions. Don't just bash me because don't like my post. If it was a "load of crap" then prove me wrong.

2. Kassian's talent is not shining yet because he's still developing. Hodgson needed 3 years to make a roster spot on the Canucks and it wasn't just because of a back injury. He needed to develop much like how Kassian is now.

3. If Kassian's contributing to the game, whether it's hits, fights, anything to keep momentum going, then at least he's doing more than Hodgson would if Hodgson were not producing points. The difference is Kassian can also score points and do all of those things while producing points. That's what makes the difference and that's why his value was that of Hodgson's. Kassian doesn't have to produce as many points as Hodgson in order to contribute to the team.

If you want another comparison. Lucic's contract has a 6mil cap hit, yet he only produces roughly 60 points a season. Because he is a rare commodity in the NHL with size and grit along with producing some points, he can command a higher price than if he just scored 60 points a season.

[Warhippy]

Kassian is on our team, He is getting noticeably better every game, he is less of a defensive liability.

Hodgson is not on our team, we couldn't have afforded Hodgson's contract, he's closer to his family.

Let it go. The endless obsessing over a guy who left the team 2 years ago is not only sad but pathetic and kind of troubling. How often do some of you drive by the workplace of ex girlfriends?

I mean really....

[Gollumpus]

You haven't said one thing about the actual matter at hand: Is Hodgson "objectively" better than Kassian?

How very observant of you, to a point. If you read the post through, you should have noticed that I was addressing how prana was arguing his point, not what he was agruing. The topic was not really relevant.

I really wish all you schmucks would stop with all this "objectivity" crap. We are all human and this is a message board. You really think objectivity exists here?

Well, it's nice that your opinion of your fellow posters seems to going up, however, the "schmucks" comment does detract from your attempt at goodwill.

pranna seems to think that objectivity exists here. Granted, "objectivity" seems to be defined as what currently constitutes his opinon on any subject. In your case, suggesting that objectivity doesn't exist here might be seen as an excuse for you to say any ol' thing.

Hodgson has put up more points than Kassian, in more minutes. Simple. We can talk about point production rate, individual playing style, help from linemates, injuries, etc. But the bottom line is, Hodgson produced more points than Kassian. Not sure how much more "objective" we really can get given a comparison as absurd as this.

Well, you seem determined to use only measurements of which you approve. It's kind of like a defense attorney, being told by a judge that all of his evidence is inadmissable, because the prosecution find it inconvenient in the arguing of their case.

If we are to be "objective", then shouldn't we look at all of the factors and not just points? Oh, what am I saying, that would be inconvenient, wouldn't it?

Kassian doesn't produce at a high rate, or really, any rate, because he still is learning. If you watch him out there, he still does dumb stuff very often. However, he is still learning, and his size somewhat makes up for his blunders. Hodgson is a smarter player who is clearly more mature on the ice than Kassian. His lack of physical size seems to be his biggest drawback.

Yup, Hodgson doesn't play a very physical game. Raymond plays with more physicality.

Hodgson's skating which isn't that great, or his defensive ability, or his poor showing at faceoffs... As you are being objective I thought I'd add these things which you seem to have forgotten.

In terms of raw skill or talent, I daresay Hodgson outclasses Kassian by a long shot. In terms of long-term value to their respective clubs, Kassian is obviously a better asset since big, skilled wingers are a rare commodity, at least here in Vancouver.

This could be true. We shall have to see.

You seem rather incapacitated by your homerism and its resulting tendency to defend current Canucks and flame former Canucks. I don't blame you, but face it: the team was forced to trade Hodgson and this meant that they would have to lose out at least slightly on the ensuing trade.

Uhm, do you mean me? If so, I suggest that you go back and re-read (or maybe just read) some of my previous posts. I am fairly neutral on the Hodgson deal. That's my objective opinion on the matter.

regards,

G.