-
Posts
7,291 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Gollumpus
-
[GDT] Vancouver Canucks vs Edmonton Oilers 7PM Jan 27th
Gollumpus replied to Alex the Great's topic in Canucks Talk
Yeah. He's making life difficult for the trolls. regards, G. -
Change Needed!-Aquilini's Please Fire Gillis!
Gollumpus replied to Ricciuti1's topic in Canucks Talk
I wonder who is going to be the next whipping boy on these forums? I've heard that the trainers don't always get the gloves dried out quite enough between periods. Maybe that's why the team is losing... I think your message isn't quite getting across to people. The "all caps" just isn't cutting it. Maybe go all out like the example below. See? That's much more effective, and I'm sure that many people will now realize that what you are saying is correct. regards, G. -
Gillis silent while Canucks need him most (Bold moves my ass)
Gollumpus replied to Jamaicanice's topic in Canucks Talk
What about the non-retarded views? regards, G. -
Gillis silent while Canucks need him most (Bold moves my ass)
Gollumpus replied to Jamaicanice's topic in Canucks Talk
What, you mean to say that they aren't the same thing? Crazy talk. Next you'll be saying that there's more to judging what makes a good hockey player than just how many points he has scored! regards, G. -
The post to which you are reffering is a good post. This being said, it does not address the point to which I was speaking. If there is going to be talk about how there is an NHL conspiracy to facilitate the success of certain teams, what is being done to make it worth the while of those owners of teams who are not one of the chosen few? TV revenue bucks just doesn't seem to be enough. regards, G.
-
Not saying that I agree/disagree with what you're saying, however, I do have one question: The other owners either aren't part of this conspiracy, or they are. If what some say is absolutely true, and that there is a big, NHL conspiracy to ensure that only certain teams "win", what is the incentive for the owners of the "also ran" teams to actually be owners? Aren't: If mere fans can see the evidence of this conspiracy, shouldn't these owners be able to see that there's something fishy going on? Any team which is not part of this choice group can make an argument that they are being screwed out of a lot of money. Even successful franchises like the Canucks, would be making even more money with a Cup win, or two. Wouldn't they then get together and discuss the situation amongst themselves, and then take action against the NHL? Can't say I've heard anything about any lawsuits. And if they have tried to do something and have failed, why hasn't there been a defection of owners, particularly from the bottom-feeder teams? Are: If every owner is in on this conspiracy, then there has to be a lot of money changing hands. True, the NHL is making more money now than they were a number of years ago. Is that increase in TV (and other) revenues enough to offset the lack of money that would be coming in from having fans in the seats of these other teams? Is the TV revenue enough to make these losing teams "profitable" to own? I'm feeling doubtful about this. If all of the owners are in on this,why wouldn't more teams then go the "internal cap" route? What's the incentive for the Canucks' ownership to spend to the cap each year if they know they aren't going to win a championship? Why not just spend enough to satisfy the local fans that there is an attempt being made to compete, and therefore have a much larger profit by the end of each season when the cheque from head office comes in? Or are teams in significant, but not supposed to win markets getting a bigger cut of the pie to offset the amount of money they put out by spending to the cap? regards, G.
-
Yeah, I was just spreading the love to yet another of those long lost Canucks. regards, G.
-
Bruce Holloway. regards, G.
-
Too Early to call Kassian a dissapointment?
Gollumpus replied to Go Go Canucks Go's topic in Canucks Talk
I don't believe Hodgson was substantially shopped. Gillis did mention he was looking for a certain type of player, and mentioned a few teams to which he had talked about Hodgson (eg Carolina). Not sure why he would shop Hodgson around to teams who might offer him a d-man or a draft pick, which might be nice, but weren't the return he was seeking. Another point about Kassian possibly being the best return Gillis could get, you had mentioned out above (in a response to Baggins) how during that season Hodgson was on a 50+ point pace. He was even Rookie of the Month in January(?). However, look at his totals for February. He had 1g 1a for the month. Some would argue that this was due to him getting less TOI. Others would say that he went cold first, which led to reduced TOI. In those 63 games that last season with the Canucks, Hodgson was on a pace for 43 points, mostly because of a really bad February. I think Gillis viewed this trade as perhaps his last chance to get something he wanted for Hodgson before other GM's could start to drive the price down after the season was over. That says you believe he was listening to other trade offers, and refused them. These are two different things, but I get your meaning. regards, G. -
Too Early to call Kassian a dissapointment?
Gollumpus replied to Go Go Canucks Go's topic in Canucks Talk
If you're talking about Hodgson supposedly agitating for a trade, sure, who cares? Any criticism regarding his play, lack in skating or physical play are valid points (IMO). A number of pre-Hodgson types lump any criticism in with the "stupid (mostly made up) reasons". Hodgson will produce more points. If that is how you want to measure these two players then fine, you have won the day. However, it does not address who would be the more valuable player to this team, which would likely be Kassian. Yeah, the Canucks traded away a Shetland pony for a Clydesdale. Not knocking Shetland ponies. Each has their role, and the Canucks needed a larger horse. They are currently training him to pull a plow. So what you are suggesting is that the Canucks should have gotten more than Kassian for Hodgson, yes? Ever stop to consider that Kassian was the best offer that the Canucks got for Hodgson? And based on Hodgson's play at the time of the trade, and the chances that he wouldn't be a playoff performer against the tighter checking and physical play in the playoffs, his stock was going down. (Yes, he rookie of the month in January. What did he do in February?) Who knows, maybe Hodgson would have done okay, but Gillis decided to move him while his value was still high, rather than wait on the hope that it might go higher. regards, G. -
Too Early to call Kassian a dissapointment?
Gollumpus replied to Go Go Canucks Go's topic in Canucks Talk
I agree, and people who knock Kassian's point production should be using the same criteria. This usually gets missed. Another interesting about those 63 games with the Canucks, Hodgson was arguably a "better" player here as a 3C than he was as a 1C in his first 68 games in Buffalo ('11 - 12 & '12 - 13 seasons), Hodgson was playing fewer, some say "sheltered" minutes here, with two 3rd liners who have some offensive skill and produced the point totals which you have noted above. In those 68 games in Buffalo, playing with perhaps the best offensive minded wingers he will ever see in his career, he generated a mere 18g 24a -11. One would expect those numbers should have been higher. regards, G. -
Too Early to call Kassian a dissapointment?
Gollumpus replied to Go Go Canucks Go's topic in Canucks Talk
Uhm, from where are you getting data for their last 15 years of hockey play? And why would their respective numbers, from when they were around 8 years old, be of use in our assessment of these players? Looking at their current NHL numbers, Hodgson is a -12 for his career, while Kassian is a -13. It does argue against Kassian being a better defensive player. Another way of looking at these numbers is, Hodgson has had the misfortune to be on the ice for a goal against about once every 1.6 games. Kassian has been on the ice for a goal against about once every 2.7 games. (Numbers achieved by adding the player's total points to thier +/- total, and then dividing that number into his total games played.) I would also note that Hodgson has gone from a +9 while he was with the Canucks, to a -21 in his time with the Sabres, for a total of -12. Most of Kassian's -13 has come since he joined the Canucks. I'm sure there are very good reasons as to why Hodgson is not responsible for his totals in this area. regards, G. -
Too Early to call Kassian a dissapointment?
Gollumpus replied to Go Go Canucks Go's topic in Canucks Talk
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. 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. 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? 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. This could be true. We shall have to see. 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. -
Too Early to call Kassian a dissapointment?
Gollumpus replied to Go Go Canucks Go's topic in Canucks Talk
Thank you for posting this warning to anyone who might read your post. I can vouch for its veracity. 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. 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". 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). Oh come on, couldn't we just horse whip the people who have an opinion with which you do not agree? Handled above. Once again, in principle I agree. regards, G. -
Too Early to call Kassian a dissapointment?
Gollumpus replied to Go Go Canucks Go's topic in Canucks Talk
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. -
Too Early to call Kassian a dissapointment?
Gollumpus replied to Go Go Canucks Go's topic in Canucks Talk
Don't think I said that. What I am saying is that Hodgson is a skilled hockey player, but he is not as good as some people here suggest he is. What I did say is that Buffalo was without any other realistic options for a 1C and therefore paid Hodgson more than what I believe he is actually worth. This being said, do you really think that Hodgson is that good if all he got was Tyler Bozak money? regards, G. -
Too Early to call Kassian a dissapointment?
Gollumpus replied to Go Go Canucks Go's topic in Canucks Talk
I don't believe anyone forgets this. What we have not seen is a willingness on the part of Hodgson to demonstrate his defensive ability or to show any work ethic unless he was in the offensive own and his team was in possession of the puck. Or is that where the "to a point" comment comes in? regards, G. -
Too Early to call Kassian a dissapointment?
Gollumpus replied to Go Go Canucks Go's topic in Canucks Talk
Nothing funny about it, other than you continue to misunderstand the point. Keep working at. As to the amount which Kassian might get as per my suggestion, I see that as being a reasonable amount for a guy signing his RFA deal for what he has shown to date. Where you are getting turned around is you are comparing it to what Hodgson got from Buffalo. In Hodgson's case, he is the best (and only) choice they have as a 1C. The Sabres were/are desperate for help in that area, and therefore (IMO) they overpaid Hodgson more than what he is truly worth (in money and term). If Hodgson had not re-signed with Buffalo that would be a significant problem for the Sabres. regards, G. -
Too Early to call Kassian a dissapointment?
Gollumpus replied to Go Go Canucks Go's topic in Canucks Talk
Maybe the Canucks should send a scout to Skyrim? regards, G. -
Too Early to call Kassian a dissapointment?
Gollumpus replied to Go Go Canucks Go's topic in Canucks Talk
Why would you assume that I believe signing bonuses are bogus? What I am suggesting is that Kassian will get something (without bonuses) akin to what Hodgson was getting with bonuses. Hodgson was getting bonuses in the contract he signed with the Canucks prior to his deal with Bufflao, yes? I'm sure you'll figure it out. regards, G. -
Too Early to call Kassian a dissapointment?
Gollumpus replied to Go Go Canucks Go's topic in Canucks Talk
Wise advice. regards, G. -
Too Early to call Kassian a dissapointment?
Gollumpus replied to Go Go Canucks Go's topic in Canucks Talk
Hodgson did also have $850,000 in bonuses starting in '10 - '11, but it looks like he didn't have to do much to earn it. I'm sure you just overlooked this in your haste to provide an answer. I wouldn't be surprised to see Kassian get something around $1.6 to low $2 million for his next contract. regards, G. -
Too Early to call Kassian a dissapointment?
Gollumpus replied to Go Go Canucks Go's topic in Canucks Talk
Well then, that would put him in the same ballpark of what Hodgson got prior to his current deal ($1.6 million w/bonuses). It's nice to see that you believe Kassian should be rewarded as much as Hodgson was at a similar period in his career. regards, G. -
Too Early to call Kassian a dissapointment?
Gollumpus replied to Go Go Canucks Go's topic in Canucks Talk
Your post does illustrate very nicely where you stand on this situation. It is also very ironic in that any aspersions you wish to heap on to the "other side" over their bias may also be applied to you. Good job! If we are to only use the measuring stick which you are supplying, then yes, Hodgson is a better hockey player than Kassian. There are however, other measuring sticks which should be considered. Hodgson is a better "offensive" hockey player than Kassian. His shot is better, and he is better at making plays. I do not believe that there is any doubt on this point, on either side. This does not mean that Kassian will not improve in these areas. I believe he will. Hodgson will probably produce many more points than Kassian over their respective careers. This does not mean that Kassian cannot, or will not, produce enough points to make him a very effective 2nd/3rd line winger over the next decade+. That is the reality. Other aspects which are usually overlooked (or under valued by some) are: - Kassian is a better skater than Hodgson (speed, being strong on his skates etc). - Kassian plays a more physical game than Hodgson (as in: Kassian plays a physical game while Hodgson, not so much). - Kassian looks to be the more solid defender than Hodgson. Maybe Hodgson will improve as a defender, but he has looked to be very reluctant to display his ability in this area on a continuing basis. That is the reality. So what does that do for us? Hodgson has more points which allows one side to call him a "better player". Arguably he is costing his team goals, and more goals against, due to his lack in other areas. Hodgson will likely be a top-6 center in the NHL, probably the best he will do on a good team is as a 2C. He does not have the ability to be an effective bottom-6 center, and he doesn't have enough ability to be a 1C. Just to stave off some of the outrage, ask yourself this: Imagine you could put Hodgson on any other team in the NHL. On which of those teams could he be the undisputed 1C? Kassian has fewer points. He will probably do more to generate points for other players on this team, and prevent goals against, due to his style of play. This makes him more valuable to the Canucks now, and over his career. This makes the other side happy. That is the reality. But if you wish to only use your standards, please continue. Once again, I compliment you on your irony in posting. You criticize another poster for name calling and slagging off another player, and then call him a 12 year old. regards, G. -
The lack of secondary scoring is so glaring...
Gollumpus replied to Lui's Knob's topic in Canucks Talk
To be fair, the first season for Kesler ('03 - '04) was only 28 games. I'd be inclined to cast that one out of your calculations. There's also two seasons which were shortened by injury ('08 - '07 & '12 - '13), so I'd be inclined to not consider these either. Kelser's first full season was '04 - '05, but he was still a rookie playing behind guys like Morrison, Linden and Sedin (amongst others), so I wouldn't give much thought to including this in your analysis. This gives us six seasons, where in four of them he has scored 20+ goals, 40+ in one of them, and is well on his way to breaking the 20+ (30+?) mark again for this season. An argument can be made that he did not have a top-6, offensive role on this team until '08 - '09, which would suggest that Kesler has really had only four years (excluding this season) where he would have been expected to play like a top-6 point producer while still being a very good defender. So, he got 26g 59 pts +8 in '08 - '09. He got 25g 75 pts +1 in '09 - '10. He got 41g 73 pts +24 in '10 - '11. Also got a Selke. Sadly, he only scored a mere 22g 49 pts +11 in '11 - '12. For this year, and for '08 - '09, I'm going to use my "Cody Hodgson never had good line mates like he deserved or he would have scored more points!" card considering Kesler really didn't have any good line mates in those seasons, at least not for very long. regards, G.