Kassian RFA year

[peaches5]

Kassian needs to realize that he is not capable of beating guys one on one and stop trying to do all these fancy moves that end up with him losing the puck. He will be a decent player when he realizes he is not nearly as good as he thinks he is.

[Nino]

No, It's a Zeimer quote on what he "felt" Gillis "intimated".

You're the one making claims, you're the one that needs to provide evidence. And again, even if he did actually say that, it's still not remotely damning.

We were one of the the top scoring teams in the league for a while there with a pretty blatant lack of "grit". Trading a bit of something we had an abundance of at the time for something we needed was exactly what he should have been doing. And I still say we win that trade in the long run. Heck I'd say it's at worst a wash as of right now. Making it all the sillier a point of contention for your ilk to trot out in every Gillis thread.

In no place did he say "he felt" it was a report on an interview with MG himself. You still didn't elaborate on what your beef is? I'm not aytempeting to chalange anything you said I believe the balls in your cort if you'd like to dig up anything that show MG disagreed with Brads story from an interview with the man himself.

[Nino]

Do you know why?

By the end of the 2011 playoff run....

Blue = playing injured / Red = out with injury / Black = no reported injury

Sedin/Sedin/Burrows

Raymond/Kesler/Samuelson

Higgins/Lappiere/Hansen

Edler/Ehrhoff

Hamhuis/Bieksa

That's why he decided we needed size, skill and speed as opposed to just skill and speed. Something that most on this board were saying after the physical beating we took in that playoff run.

The reason why is not relevant or even important, even gritty teams have players that go down in the playoffs.

The important thing is the ability to win games in the playoffs, after he started in the new direction how many playoff games have we won? How many goals did we score? What's our position in the standings right now?

The bottom line is we don't have a second line anymore because MG didn't value scoring as much as he should have and this has hurt the teams chances of winning games. Some GMs have built teams with great success with gritty players but MG didn't and it's because he didn't do a good job with his retooling.

Again I'm not saying it was zacks fault that this retooling started just that it was the start of MGs plan that ended up destroying the Canucks.

Not sure how you can dispute this or why you would even want to.

[Fred65]

The reason why is not relevant or even important, even gritty teams have players that go down in the playoffs.

The important thing is the ability to win games in the playoffs, after he started in the new direction how many playoff games have we won? How many goals did we score? What's our position in the standings right now?

The bottom line is we don't have a second line anymore because MG didn't value scoring as much as he should have and this has hurt the teams chances of winning games. Some GMs have built teams with great success with gritty players but MG didn't and it's because he didn't do a good job with his retooling.

Again I'm not saying it was zacks fault that this retooling started just that it was the start of MGs plan that ended up destroying the Canucks.

Not sure how you can dispute this or why you would even want to.

My my we do tend to get Vancouver centric don't we

During Gillis regime this team has had the best record of it's entire history...go look when did the Nucks, ever winn 2 presidents trophy, and got to the 7th game of the SC all in the span of one GM...go ahead tell me.

Which GM has signed more FA's at no cost than Gillis, Lack, Tanev, Stanton, Erickson and now Fox...that's like stealing draft picks

Who revamped the scouting service to obtain this.

One bad season in the last 5 years and every one is into hanging the guy. Just seems to play to the Johnny come lately brigade of fans who have never witnessed any thing but success.

Here's a question Detroit is doing about the same as the Canucks will they hang Holland or just keep the faith and motor on with confidence knowing it's a cycle.

Vcr decided...and I'm thinking by all parties Aqualinni and Gillis success in the future is going to be achieved with a different game plan...they had hope it would be seemless but it isn't, should they abandon the plan ( keep in mind the type of prospect that are in the system ) and start new or stick with it.

Vct future is being built around size, speed and skill...but size seems to be a major factor of the new breed of Canucks ( look at the prospects carefully )

[Canuck Surfer]

If you want to sign him for more than one year you'll have to give a decent contract. Wait till you see what ufa's are going for with this years cap increase. If you can get Kassian to sign a 3 year deal under $2m per it will be a bargain.

3 years is a dangerous term isn't it? Can someone clarify the CBA on age / experience when a guy can become UFA on expiry of his deal. I believe it's 26??

Ergo if we sign him 2 years or less we retain his rights. 3 or more he's UFA on expiry.

A 2 year bridge deal at $2 mill would be ok. A 3 year one, and if I'm Kassian I sign it as fast as I can.

[Canuck Surfer]

Kassian btw is a good player. Mentioned earlier in the thread: Will have a long career if he does nothing more than what he is now. He does not hurt the team, scores some and is an imposing matchup that teams have to deal with considering his size and speed. Still has fair if not vast quantities of untapped potential.

His trade, and the surrounding ones, should still always be viewed as a fail. It completely wasted the potential of the team at the time the trade was made.

The goal was size and grit, Pahlsson to be a Manny replacement, MAG Gragnani to inject some of what we lost in Errhof leaving. We have only one of these elements, and waited 3 years on to get it. We also overrated Schroeder's ability to replace CoHo mid and longer term. The team has slowly slid into oblivion missing the elements we tried to achieve.

Will I / Do I take solace in Kassian being pretty good now? Sure...

[hlinkas wrister]

If we ever get rid of this guy, I hope it's to a team we rarely play against because he doesn't seem to take to kindly to teams who give up on him lol

[BCRenegade]

The OP has the point. All you guys saying "Kassian is still young", GUYS. He's been here two years and has been next to useless. He's played with the twins countless times and has never shown dominance outside of a couple games. We need to learn to expect more from this kid. The honeymoon is over. Kass needs to perform.

I love reading people bashing our younger players who are still developing, then that player has a great game.

If you can't see Kass's potential unfolding you have your hate blinders on. He will get better, I'm hoping just for consistency, the points will come.

Sure like to see less sh!t talking about our younger players and just support your team.

[CANUCKS FTW!]

The OP has the point. All you guys saying "Kassian is still young", GUYS. He's been here two years and has been next to useless. He's played with the twins countless times and has never shown dominance outside of a couple games. We need to learn to expect more from this kid. The honeymoon is over. Kass needs to perform.

Yea he sure performed today.

[TheHitman]

He's the third best passer on the Canucks atm, no way he shouldn't be given at least 1.5 M over 2 years. His production has been very good when you think about who he's been playing with and how many minutes he's been playing.

[Baggins]

3 years is a dangerous term isn't it? Can someone clarify the CBA on age / experience when a guy can become UFA on expiry of his deal. I believe it's 26??

Ergo if we sign him 2 years or less we retain his rights. 3 or more he's UFA on expiry.

A 2 year bridge deal at $2 mill would be ok. A 3 year one, and if I'm Kassian I sign it as fast as I can.

Even if his deal expires at 26 he's either going to want a one year deal, or an offer that's worth extending well past his ufa year. Either way you're going to have to pay. A third year at a low rate could potentially more than make up for the next raise. Plus he could be offered an extension prior to playing that third year.

[alt kilgore]

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.

Not really. It was Hodgson's productivity of course but it was mostly the timing of the deal and the role that Kassian could provide for us going into the playoffs. And to address another poster's claim, it also didn't matter whether Gillis thought Zack could help us immediately or not, fact is he didn't. Cody was, at the time, our third leading scorer, tops in playing rookies for ice time, with the club knowing Kesler was injured. In the Final the year before the criticism for failure was equal part Luongo and lack of scoring. Even Cody sounded surprised when it happened. We lost by one goal in two of those games and by two in the others. It is not out of the realm of possibilities that Cody may have potted one or two goals for us, maybe just the ones we needed to change momentum to get over the Kings, just as Daniel was coming back. I've watched enough playoffs to know that anything can happen if you get a little luck. This was only one year after our big run, we had been in a slump, but we were still the Presidents Trophy champions. Who knows how we'd react if we had just had those few goals needed to squeeze past the Kings?

All I'm saying is we missed even finding out if our hockey pundit praised rookie prize could shine when we needed him - like he did with the insurance goal in the statement game against Boston on the road that same year. You have to grab the brass ring for the SCP when you have the opportunity, because it may be harder to grab than you thought, look at this year.

Of course I'm 100% stoked about Kassian's development. He may even be ahead of schedule. I'm glad he's here. But that doesn't change the fact that Gillis traded away "immediate offense" just before we enter the playoffs with the other top scorers injured. There's a time to trade with a rebuild in mind (like now maybe) and a time to go for it (like 2012)

[LOL_dre]

Honestly what I saw from Kassian tonight is exactly the kind of play I expected from him. Based on his Junior numbers I don't think he is the crash the net and score goals kind of guy I think he's more battle hard along the boards and get the puck to the slot kind of guy. Which to me means he will be a great winger for Kesler, if we don't trade Kesler.

[Absent Canuck]

Not really. It was Hodgson's productivity of course but it was mostly the timing of the deal and the role that Kassian could provide for us going into the playoffs. And to address another poster's claim, it also didn't matter whether Gillis thought Zack could help us immediately or not, fact is he didn't. Cody was, at the time, our third leading scorer, tops in playing rookies for ice time, with the club knowing Kesler was injured. In the Final the year before the criticism for failure was equal part Luongo and lack of scoring. Even Cody sounded surprised when it happened. We lost by one goal in two of those games and by two in the others. It is not out of the realm of possibilities that Cody may have potted one or two goals for us, maybe just the ones we needed to change momentum to get over the Kings, just as Daniel was coming back. I've watched enough playoffs to know that anything can happen if you get a little luck. This was only one year after our big run, we had been in a slump, but we were still the Presidents Trophy champions. Who knows how we'd react if we had just had those few goals needed to squeeze past the Kings?

All I'm saying is we missed even finding out if our hockey pundit praised rookie prize could shine when we needed him - like he did with the insurance goal in the statement game against Boston on the road that same year. You have to grab the brass ring for the SCP when you have the opportunity, because it may be harder to grab than you thought, look at this year.

Of course I'm 100% stoked about Kassian's development. He may even be ahead of schedule. I'm glad he's here. But that doesn't change the fact that Gillis traded away "immediate offense" just before we enter the playoffs with the other top scorers injured. There's a time to trade with a rebuild in mind (like now maybe) and a time to go for it (like 2012)

I cant believe we are talking about the same Cody Hodgson.

The one I saw was being showcased for trade and at age 22 he was not fast nor strong enough to make some kind of an impact in the playoffs. That would be a suspension of disbelief.

To use our common sense, he would have toiled around on the third line when traditionally that spot is reserved for a shut down center. This all comes back to Hodgson moving Henrik or Ryan out of the top 2 spots. Again, it would be a suspension of disbelief for a coach to make that decision.

However, the bottom line was the whining and moaning his agent/dad did to ask for more ice time. Our team was not a good fit for him and it was just a matter of time until he was moved.

Thank god the Sabres wanted a center and instead of being patient enough to develop Kassian, then let him go.

The above is a fair and honest approach any GM and coach would use in that situation. I am just glad we didnt have to settle for a half baked player and mid level 1st.

[Baggins]

The reason why is not relevant or even important, even gritty teams have players that go down in the playoffs.

The important thing is the ability to win games in the playoffs, after he started in the new direction how many playoff games have we won? How many goals did we score? What's our position in the standings right now?

The bottom line is we don't have a second line anymore because MG didn't value scoring as much as he should have and this has hurt the teams chances of winning games. Some GMs have built teams with great success with gritty players but MG didn't and it's because he didn't do a good job with his retooling.

Again I'm not saying it was zacks fault that this retooling started just that it was the start of MGs plan that ended up destroying the Canucks.

Not sure how you can dispute this or why you would even want to.

It is relleveant. When skilled players go down you need big bodies that can muck out wins. You can't bury your head in the sand and ignore what happened in that playoff run.

And I don't buy into the "team has been destroyed" notion. Was trading Samuelsson really a bad idea? He played 54 games the season he was traded. Only 4 games in 12/13 and a whopping 26 games this season. He was traded for a bigger, younger, more physical player who came in and was putting up points. Nobody here was complaining about Booth until his knee injury marked a long series of injuries. You can't forecast that. That deal made sense when it was made. That's all you can really ask.

[Baggins]

Not really. It was Hodgson's productivity of course but it was mostly the timing of the deal and the role that Kassian could provide for us going into the playoffs. And to address another poster's claim, it also didn't matter whether Gillis thought Zack could help us immediately or not, fact is he didn't. Cody was, at the time, our third leading scorer, tops in playing rookies for ice time, with the club knowing Kesler was injured. In the Final the year before the criticism for failure was equal part Luongo and lack of scoring. Even Cody sounded surprised when it happened. We lost by one goal in two of those games and by two in the others. It is not out of the realm of possibilities that Cody may have potted one or two goals for us, maybe just the ones we needed to change momentum to get over the Kings, just as Daniel was coming back. I've watched enough playoffs to know that anything can happen if you get a little luck. This was only one year after our big run, we had been in a slump, but we were still the Presidents Trophy champions. Who knows how we'd react if we had just had those few goals needed to squeeze past the Kings?

All I'm saying is we missed even finding out if our hockey pundit praised rookie prize could shine when we needed him - like he did with the insurance goal in the statement game against Boston on the road that same year. You have to grab the brass ring for the SCP when you have the opportunity, because it may be harder to grab than you thought, look at this year.

Of course I'm 100% stoked about Kassian's development. He may even be ahead of schedule. I'm glad he's here. But that doesn't change the fact that Gillis traded away "immediate offense" just before we enter the playoffs with the other top scorers injured. There's a time to trade with a rebuild in mind (like now maybe) and a time to go for it (like 2012)

I've addressed the timing many, many times but I will yet again for you.

What difference did the timing make? Would Hodgson have put this team on his back and carried us to the cup? He couldn't help Buffalo make the playoffs, but he'd somehow get us to the finals? Sometimes you have to deal when what you are looking for is made available. That's the bottom line in this deal. Buffalo was a few wins out of a playoff spot but were in dire need of a center. That's the precisely reason Kassian was made available when he was. Buffalo wasn't going to wait until the off-season to make that move because they were still in the playoff hunt but needed help. Gillis had inquired about 6 young power forwards in the off-season and none of the teams, including Buffalo, were interested. That's why the deal had to be made when it was. Those thinking Hodgson would have saved our playoffs are dreamers. The timing simply didn't matter.

[Nino]

It is relleveant. When skilled players go down you need big bodies that can muck out wins. You can't bury your head in the sand and ignore what happened in that playoff run.

And I don't buy into the "team has been destroyed" notion. Was trading Samuelsson really a bad idea? He played 54 games the season he was traded. Only 4 games in 12/13 and a whopping 26 games this season. He was traded for a bigger, younger, more physical player who came in and was putting up points. Nobody here was complaining about Booth until his knee injury marked a long series of injuries. You can't forecast that. That deal made sense when it was made. That's all you can really ask.

When skilled players go down you need other skilled players to be there to pick up the slack. same for the grinders on the team, when they go down you need players that can step up and fill the hole. You are not going to win without scoring goals and we have all seen this in the playoffs especially. MG messed up the scoring ability of our team by targeting less skilled players. You keep bringing up particular trades but just like kass it's not booths fault that MG didn't do a good job of retooling. It's a combination of all the trades and lack there of that led us down the path we are on. I'm not adverse to the idea of a big strong team it's just that MG wasn't capable of building it and I don't understand why he even tried when we were a team that could compleat for the cup before the retool, it was a misjudgment on his part and we as fans are paying for it.

[surtur]

Kassian needs to realize that he is not capable of beating guys one on one and stop trying to do all these fancy moves that end up with him losing the puck. He will be a decent player when he realizes he is not nearly as good as he thinks he is.

the result of not developing enough in the AHL i imagine if he spent the last 2 years in the AHL he would be a much better goal scorer instead of playing 3rd/ 4th line min but again would he be as good in the 2 way game esp after this season under tortz

[TheXFactor]

I've addressed the timing many, many times but I will yet again for you.

What difference did the timing make? Would Hodgson have put this team on his back and carried us to the cup? He couldn't help Buffalo make the playoffs, but he'd somehow get us to the finals? Sometimes you have to deal when what you are looking for is made available. That's the bottom line in this deal. Buffalo was a few wins out of a playoff spot but were in dire need of a center. That's the precisely reason Kassian was made available when he was. Buffalo wasn't going to wait until the off-season to make that move because they were still in the playoff hunt but needed help. Gillis had inquired about 6 young power forwards in the off-season and none of the teams, including Buffalo, were interested. That's why the deal had to be made when it was. Those thinking Hodgson would have saved our playoffs are dreamers. The timing simply didn't matter.

The fact that Hodgeson is now the 1st line center for Buffalo is enough to say how weak their roster is. Its not that he couldn't help Buffalo into the playoffs, its because the whole team wasn't playing good enough. No one I know ever said Hodgeson would carry us to the cup, but all things considering I would personally say that Hodgeson would have contributed more to winning in the playoffs than Kassian could at the time. Yes Kassian is physical but at the time he was nowhere near as developed as Hodgeson was.

[CanucksSayEh]

Ofcourse the timing mattered. No one needed to carry us, we lose games by 1 goal. A couple points changes everything. Doesn't even have to be scored by Coho. Make a different trade.

Kass is fine, maybe he will even be the better of the 2 next season. If it ends up being the 2nd season in a row of missing the playoffs, after 2 with 1 combined win.. does it even matter?