Kassian RFA year

[Baggins]

It all sounds very good, but that's not how hockey works. Hodgson is playing on the worst team in the league. Crosby plays more than any other forward in the league and scores more than anyone. You earn your ice time. That's how hockey works. If you're good then you get to play more.

Hodgson was playing with the best players on his team in the best offensive situations with top line minutes. Can the same be said of Kassian?

[Baggins]

No. I just said that if you earn your ice time. There is a reason that Hodgson plays more than Kassian.

Would that reason be that he's on the worst team in the league and they don't have anybody better?

[Tre Mac]

 

Looking at the trade a couple deadlines later.

Hodgson has 16 goals, 19 assists

.90 pp60 minutes

46% in the faceoff circle

-25

18+ minutes a night

3:13 powerplay time / game

45% of his offensive production is on the power play.

9 goals and 10 assists at even strength.

-16.76 corsi on, 25th on the rather bad Buffalo Sabres.

He's lost his top line center job to Tyler Ennis.

6 years x 4.25 million.

Kassian has 11 goals, 8 assists.

.85pp 60 minutes.

-10

12+ minutes a night

38 seconds of powerplay time/game

10 goals and 8 assists at even strength.

4.5% of production on the powerplay.

-2.25 corsi on, 18th on the Canucks.

Third line minutes (with Booth and his 13pts).

Qualifying offer of 850k required. Would be happy to offer him twice that.

Not a bad hockey trade at all.

 

You know at first I was very vocal about this being a bad trade for us but now its just a bad trade for both teams to be honest.

[Goat James]

Would that reason be that he's on the worst team in the league and they don't have anybody better?

I don't wanna be that guy but fact still remains that Hodgson out scored everybody on our team who didn't win a major trophy in the two previous years (Sedins and Kesler) when he still was here...

The hate he gets here is just retarded. Cody is a good hockey player.

[ice orca]

Cody doesn't get anywhere near the hate Kassian has got..not even close.

[Nino]

I see why you'd change the subject to Booth - because you whiffed on Kassian.

Some crapty VanSun scribbling isn't going to change what has actually transpired.

Have a look at Hodgson's numbers - they're posted a page back - how was this trade the start of a downfall? That's ridiculous. The kind of stuff Tony G would say, and then backtrack a few years later, deleting his old articles, and arguing that Kassian should be playing top line minutes.

At 4.25 million for Hodgson, compared to Kassian's 810k - rich that you should end that post referring to overpaid 'plugs'. Kassian is neither.

I didn't change the subject I just thought it was interesting that booth was part of his fails master plan.

You must not have ready the full story if you can't see why the trade was the start of the Canucks downfall. The trade was the first trade in MG's plan to not be as concerned about scoring and add more grit. It was the start of his change of direction for the Canucks that has driven the Canucks to the ground and left us with nothing but one scoring line.

Read the story again and pay attention to what MG is saying.

PS you don't new to act like an ass.

Edit: I'll make this simple for you as well, zacks trade was the start of a new plan and a new direction he was taking the team. Before that we went to game seven in the SCF and could have won with consistent goaltending but MG thought he needed to go in a new direction. We haven't won a lot of playoff games after he went in the new direction and we are at a point now that we struggle to make the playoffs. MG drastically underestimated the value of scoring in the new direction he wanted to take us.

[oldnews]

No. I just said that if you earn your ice time. There is a reason that Hodgson plays more than Kassian.

Yeah, you said that Hodgson is playing on the worst team in the first line, and suggested that he's earned his ice time in the next.

The irony here is that he's earned his way off the first line. He also hasn't really produced all that much with that ice time. And despite being on the worst team in the NHL, 23 players on that horrible team have better underlying numbers than him.

So I'll need you to explain how it actually does work then, because the point you've made isn't convincing in the least.

[oldnews]

I don't wanna be that guy but fact still remains that Hodgson out scored everybody on our team who didn't win a major trophy in the two previous years (Sedins and Kesler) when he still was here...

The hate he gets here is just retarded. Cody is a good hockey player.

I think you need to check your facts again. Hodgson has 33 points here.

http://canucks.nhl.com/club/stats.htm?season=20112012

These are statistics, not "hate" (that's dramatic, but out of line) - we are comparing players who were traded for each other, and ironically, Kassian has easily shouldered as much "hate" as Hodgson on these boards.

[oldnews]

I didn't change the subject I just thought it was interesting that booth was part of his fails master plan.

You must not have ready the full story if you can't see why the trade was the start of the Canucks downfall. The trade was the first trade in MG's plan to not be as concerned about scoring and add more grit. It was the start of his change of direction for the Canucks that has driven the Canucks to the ground and left us with nothing but one scoring line.

Read the story again and pay attention to what MG is saying.

PS you don't new to act like an ass.

Edit: I'll make this simple for you as well, zacks trade was the start of a new plan and a new direction he was taking the team. Before that we went to game seven in the SCF and could have won with consistent goaltending but MG thought he needed to go in a new direction. We haven't won a lot of playoff games after he went in the new direction and we are at a point now that we struggle to make the playoffs. MG drastically underestimated the value of scoring in the new direction he wanted to take us.

Yeah, I got the point - it was a pretty weak one.

What they gave up in these deals is a player who is a liability without the puck, and hasn't exactly lit the NHL on fire with his scoring despite top line, very opportune minutes.

Was Hodgson going to make up for injuries to Daniel, Kesler, Tanev in the playoffs and propel the team on a run past the KIngs. No, that is fantasy. Nor would Hodgson's horrible underlying numbers, weak two way game, and not particularly impressive production have rescued this team from endless injuries, a brutal travel and compacted Olympic schedule, a coaching suspension, horrible puck luck and overall disastrous fortunes this season.

If that's what you think, I believe you've been reading too many Tony G articles like this one;

http://www.theprovince.com/sports/Neely+deal+spelled+Canucks+doom+explain/6229343/story.html

As for 'acting like an ass', you stepped in, told posters they were missing the point, rewrote a story about Kassian being sold as an immediate "impact" player, and now are getting sensitive about someone disagreeing with you and taking you to task.

In these deals that you claim were the beginning of a downfall, they also gave up Samuelsson - who has been more injury prone than Booth - Samuelsson has 32 points in three seasons since being dealt for Booth, and Sturm had 5 before retiring.

Where is all this lost scoring you are talking about?

I got the point you were trying to make, it just doesn't stand up when you scratch the surface.

[Nino]

Yeah, I got the point - it was a pretty weak one.

What they gave up in these deals is a player who is a liability without the puck, and hasn't exactly lit the NHL on fire with his scoring despite top line, very opportune minutes - he's just set his career high at 35 points. Was Hodgson going to make up for injuries to Daniel, Kesler, Tanev in the playoffs and propel the team on a run past the KIngs. No, that is fantasy. Nor would Hodgson's horrible underlying numbers, weak two way game, and not particularly impressive production have rescued this team from endless injuries, a brutal travel and compacted Olympic schedule, a coaching suspension, horrible puck luck and overall disastrous fortunes this season.

If that's what you think, I believe you've been reading too many Tony G articles like this one;

http://www.theprovince.com/sports/Neely+deal+spelled+Canucks+doom+explain/6229343/story.html

As for 'acting like an ass', you stepped in, told posters they were missing the point, rewrote a story about Kassian being sold as an immediate "impact" player, and now are getting to sensitive about someone disagreeing with you and taking you to task.

In these deals that you claim were the beginning of a downfall, they also gave up Samuelsson - who has been more injury prone than Booth - Samuelsson has 32 points in three seasons since being dealt for Booth, and Sturm had 5 before retiring.

Where is all this lost scoring you are talking about?

I got the point you were trying to make, it just doesn't stand up when you scratch the surface.

I'm not talking about Hodgson vs zack, find another person to fight with about that. I'm talking about the trade being the start of a new direction in the way MG was building the team. A direction that drove us to where we sit now. If you can't see what MG is saying after the trade then you don't understand what I was saying. Don't think I can make it any simpler then I already did sorry?

[oldnews]

I'm not talking about Hodgson vs zack, find another person to fight with about that. I'm talking about the trade being the start of a new direction in the way MG was building the team. A direction that drove us to where we sit now. If you can't see what MG is saying after the trade then you don't understand what I was saying. Don't think I can make it any simpler then I already did sorry?

Simple is correct, but not always a virtue.

You've mistaken the emphasis in the past few years on youth, speed, skill and size for the reasons the team has struggled.

Your explanation of the new "direction" as the cause of the team's woes - I highly doubt that explanation would satisfy anyone but yourself.

The team is not struggling because it acquired Zack Kassian. It really is as simple as that.

You're also missing the very simple and central point that Gillis made - the team had good depth at center, and hardly any at RW - it also didn't really have a pwf - Booth was the closest thing to a pwf in the organization, and wasn't healthy nor really producing very well in the role. A winger with playmaking abilities is probably a much better fit to play with Kesler, and one with that ability and the ability to cycle and score would probably also have better long term potential to play with the Sedins, particularly if they needed the occasional deterence factor with them on the ice.

As for pretending to take a high road above discussing the merits of the trade, your point depends upon the idea that staying the old course would have lead to more success. I think you're way out to lunch and attempting to ignore the players involved in those moves - Hodgson, Samuelsson and Sturm - isn't going to make your case any stronger. Simpler perhaps, but not in any convincing kind of way.

[aGENT]

I'm not talking about Hodgson vs zack, find another person to fight with about that. I'm talking about the trade being the start of a new direction in the way MG was building the team. A direction that drove us to where we sit now. If you can't see what MG is saying after the trade then you don't understand what I was saying. Don't think I can make it any simpler then I already did sorry?

Goodness. It wasn't the signal of a new direction. Kassian and Hodgson's offence overall is largely a wash and Kassian has skills/tools that both Hodgson and the Canucks lacked for something we already have plenty of (medium sized, tweener forwards). The move signaled nothing more than a more well rounded team and a slight acknowledgment of the needed, impending re-tool.

I don't think it's any coincidence Kassian will likely be hitting his stride at the same time we have an influx of young, talented forwards coming in to the team (the next 1-3 years).

[Baggins]

I didn't change the subject I just thought it was interesting that booth was part of his fails master plan.

You must not have ready the full story

I don't think you "ready" the whole story. Or maybe you simply didn't comprehend what was actually said.

In the same post:

Your take: "but he did say he was going to help win."

Actually said: He still has a ways to go to develop I think into his full potential, but he is an NHL player now who is going to help us in a lot of different ways.

This really shows your objectivity.

People complain about Booth but that deal looked really good when he arrived. Big, fast, physical, and could put it in the net. He was on pace for a 25 goal season until the knee injury. Then it's just been injury after injury with him. How can that be predicted? It can happen with any trade. nucknit loves to go on about his history of concussions but his injuries here haven't had anything to do with concussions.

Those complaining about the Kassian deal is entirely about Hodgson being more productive. So they see it as a bad deal. I've asked this question several times and nobody has said yes: If you had a big physical 50 point young player with good speed and willing to drop the gloves would you trade me straight across for an average size 50 point young player who is an average skater, doesn't play physical, and doesn't drop the gloves? The obvious answer is you wouldn't. Which is why we got potential skill back instead of current equal skill. Kassian has attributes in his toolbox that Hodgson will never have. That's how trades work. Anybody thinking we were getting the exact same skill back immediately is a delusional idiot living in EA world.

[RWMc1]

"delusional idiot living in EA world."

That's more than half of the fanbase.

[Nino]

Goodness. It wasn't the signal of a new direction. Kassian and Hodgson's offence overall is largely a wash and Kassian has skills/tools that both Hodgson and the Canucks lacked for something we already have plenty of (medium sized, tweener forwards). The move signaled nothing more than a more well rounded team and a slight acknowledgment of the needed, impending re-tool.

I don't think it's any coincidence Kassian will likely be hitting his stride at the same time we have an influx of young, talented forwards coming in to the team (the next 1-3 years).

Retool with a different type of player as the focus is a change of direction. That change was not done well and our decline speaks for its self. Face palm yourself.

[aGENT]

Retool with a different type of player as the focus is a change of direction. That change was not done well and our decline speaks for its self. Face palm yourself.

One player does not a team make (or a team direction for that matter). The change was done just fine and our "decline" has little to nothing to do with that trade.

[RWMc1]

It's funny, but the main point seems to be that trading Hogson for Kassian was a miistake because of Hogson's scoring ability. To me, the difference is offset by Hogson's -24 to Kassian's -10. Cody plays in an offensive role while Zack plays in a defensive role. Hogson is way too slow to be effective as a top center. In Torts system Cody would have to play a 200 foot game every shift; that is way outside of his comfort zone. It was a good trade at the time and even more so now.

[Nino]

It's funny, but the main point seems to be that trading Hogson for Kassian was a miistake because of Hogson's scoring ability. To me, the difference is offset by Hogson's -24 to Kassian's -10. Cody plays in an offensive role while Zack plays in a defensive role. Hogson is way too slow to be effective as a top center. In Torts system Cody would have to play a 200 foot game every shift; that is way outside of his comfort zone. It was a good trade at the time and even more so now.

No the point has nothing to do with zack or Cody just the direction that MG went at that time with the players he was targeting and retaining. He shed away from skill and now we lack skill, the balance he was shooting didn't take into consideration the fact that we still need two scoring lines.

[aGENT]

No the point has nothing to do with zack or Cody just the direction that MG went at that time with the players he was targeting and retaining. He shed away from skill and now we lack skill, the balance he was shooting didn't take into consideration the fact that we still need two scoring lines.

Nope.

[Nino]

One player does not a team make (or a team direction for that matter). The change was done just fine and our "decline" has little to nothing to do with that trade.

I'm not saying zack was responsible for the down turn in the Canucks, just that he was the first trade that was part of MG's new plan. I'm not in anyway pinning MGs lack of ability to build a team on kass or even that trade in particular it was just the first step in a new direction that MG thought we needed.