hearditall Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 I don't think he would have, he was fine with us, had a knack for scoring big goals. Good on the pp, which we needed badly. The point is though, he should have been traded for a roster player. Subtract 20g from the team just before playoffs for a prospect, that's how we got manhandled. A player isn't traded for a few months of service it's the long run. Hows Cody this year? 2 pts in 13 games with a -9 reading & sinking to 2nd line minutes & losing Nolan's trust & confidence in him. Cody was a 1st LINER ALL LAST YEAR as well as 1st LINE PP & only put up 44pts with a -26 reading. Kassian had 29pts on the 3rd & 4th lines with NO PP time at all & only -4... This year Kass has 3 pts & -4 to Cody's 2 pts. & -9 ALREADY. Cody is clearly way more of a liability defensively than Kassian. Plus once Kassian develops his whole game & gets an opportunity to play top 6 minutes & PP I'm positive his numbers will exceed Cody's. As well Kassian brings soooo much more with his 6'3 220lbs. package that's ONLY 23 and still maturing. Ceiling is higher than Cody... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Hodgson was in his rookie campaign and had been mismanaged by the club. He was a serious Calder candidate at the time of his trade. The bad taste most Canucks fans have is not the trade ,itself,but the value of the trade,the timing of the trade given Kesler's injury and the fact that Gillis thought the team did not need a roster player (and immediate help) in any return for his most coveted trade asset. As time wore on it was obvious to all that Gillis was trade-challenged and became his undoing. The lack of return for Hodgson was just the first shock in the long decline of Gillis ,the 'window' and his employment as an NHL GM. Draft and groom an NHL starting goaltender and then have to trade him for a prospect. Draft and mismanage a Calder candidate to the point where you are forced to trade him for a prospect. Kassian and Horvat may become reliable NHL players but the return on capital and the holes punched through a roster capable of winning a cup are the larger issues that some posters simplify as Hodgson vs. Kassian or Horvat vs. Schneider. It is actually about the abilities of the GM and his competence levels managing his roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliboy Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Should he have been moved for a roster player? Sure, that would have been nice. Who do you suggest was available? What cap space would the team have used? Pahlsson came in on the remains of a $2.65 million contract. Who would you (or anyone else) have liked the team to have picked up in a deal for Hodgson (add another $800,000 approx to the available cap for Hodgson's contract), and then explain why that team would have been willing to trade away that asset. Listen, other GM's commented on the fact they didn't know Cody was being shopped, Gillis stated on TV that his reasoning was they only targeted certain teams, meaning other teams didn't even get a chance to step up. Your attempts to paint this differently have nothing to do with reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 If Kassian was playing in the talent-dark hole that is Buffalo he'd probably be pointless, -10 and a healthy scratch most nights. Buffalo is ruining Hodgson. If he stayed here Hodgson would probably be a 50-60 point center by now, anchoring our 2nd line comfortably meaning that the Kesler trade could have landed a solid defenceman from Anaheim like Lindholm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliboy Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Hodgson was in his rookie campaign and had been mismanaged by the club. He was a serious Calder candidate at the time of his trade. The bad taste most Canucks fans have is not the trade ,itself,but the value of the trade,the timing of the trade given Kesler's injury and the fact that Gillis thought the team did not need a roster player (and immediate help) in any return for his most coveted trade asset. As time wore on it was obvious to all that Gillis was trade-challenged and became his undoing. The lack of return for Hodgson was just the first shock in the long decline of Gillis ,the 'window' and his employment as an NHL GM. Draft and groom an NHL starting goaltender and then have to trade him for a prospect. Draft and mismanage a Calder candidate to the point where you are forced to trade him for a prospect. Kassian and Horvat may become reliable NHL players but the return on capital and the holes punched through a roster capable of winning a cup are the larger issues that some posters simplify as Hodgson vs. Kassian or Horvat vs. Schneider. It is actually about the abilities of the GM and his competence levels managing his roster. And it all began with letting Hoff walk away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesman60 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Two different type of players so it depends on your team needs. Kassian is typically the better player to fit in Vancouver......however, in the Edmonton game, he pretty much floated in our zone up until the Forrence hit....that seemed to wake him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canacks1970 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Hodgson was in his rookie campaign and had been mismanaged by the club. He was a serious Calder candidate at the time of his trade. The bad taste most Canucks fans have is not the trade ,itself,but the value of the trade,the timing of the trade given Kesler's injury and the fact that Gillis thought the team did not need a roster player (and immediate help) in any return for his most coveted trade asset. As time wore on it was obvious to all that Gillis was trade-challenged and became his undoing. The lack of return for Hodgson was just the first shock in the long decline of Gillis ,the 'window' and his employment as an NHL GM. Draft and groom an NHL starting goaltender and then have to trade him for a prospect. Draft and mismanage a Calder candidate to the point where you are forced to trade him for a prospect. Kassian and Horvat may become reliable NHL players but the return on capital and the holes punched through a roster capable of winning a cup are the larger issues that some posters simplify as Hodgson vs. Kassian or Horvat vs. Schneider. It is actually about the abilities of the GM and his competence levels managing his roster. Pretty much right on. And the fact he really didn't have alot of respect among the other Gm's around the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Can't dump on Kassian's offense. Three coaches haven't given him any kind of look in the top 6. And they're right to not have done so. His defensive game is troubling. Either lazy or non-thinking on his own side of the red, he'll get a chance on the top 6 when he can show responsibility on line 3. Of course Hodgson is useless defensively, too, so the interesting comparison is with both of them on offense. But it has to be remembered that -- in the past -- Hodgson's superior point totals came when he played with Vanek and Pominville, plus lots of time on the PP. Kassian hasn't had the luxury of linemates or extra strength minutes.. This trade still won't be judged for a few years, but I have more confidence that Kassian will clue in than Hodgson will toughen up and take his line on his shoulders (as top 2 centres often have to do). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Listen, other GM's commented on the fact they didn't know Cody was being shopped, Gillis stated on TV that his reasoning was they only targeted certain teams, meaning other teams didn't even get a chance to step up. Your attempts to paint this differently have nothing to do with reality. Not sure how I'm trying to paint anything differently. The point you appear to be addressing was me asking the opinion of other posters on what kind of assets they think Gillis should have been able to get in a deal for Hodgson. I also pointed out that there were a few things which they should consider in their response, such as: cap, age, player position, etc. Feel free to add your opinion on what you believe Gillis should have gotten in a Hodgson deal. Believe it or not I do recall that other GM's made comments about not knowing that Hodgson was on the block. And so what if all 29 other GM's knew that Hodgson was being dangled? Why would it matter what other GM's were offering if it was something which the Canucks didn't want? Who cares if the something being offered is "fair value" when you don't want the return being offered? Perhaps another team would have offered a useful player but with too high a cap hit, or he was too old, perhaps he had another Luongo-length type of deal, or maybe they were going to offer a prospect in which the Canucks' already had some depth? What if they dangled a really hot goalie prospect? At that time the Canucks had Luongo and Schneider (insert snide comments about how Gillis mis-handled this situation), with Lack and the rest of their goalies coming up through the system. Would you have traded Hodgson for another Eddie Lack? I would not have done so. As you noted, Gillis said he targeted specific teams (five?) who had the type of assets he was hoping to get for Hodgson. As far as we know Buffalo was the only one who came close to biting on the asking price. And as far as we know, none of these other teams were interested enough in Hodgson to start a bidding war for his services. I don't know where Kassian fit in the Canucks' assessment of the possible assets who could be acquired in this trade. Maybe he was on the bottom of their list, or maybe he was number one, however there has been speculation that he was very high on the Canucks' list. What a lot of people appear to assume is that their opinion on Hodgson is shared by other team's GM's. If such were the case then yes, Gillis screwed up big time and didn't get full value for Hodgson. and if thinking this makes you sleep better then so be it. On the other hand, maybe Kassian was the best that Gillis could get for Hodgson. Look back up this post to where I was talking about how Gillis targeted specific teams. What did you think Hodgson's value was at that point? Now if you hated the deal, and didn't think Kassian was fair value, and any other GM would have been salivating to get his hands on Hodgson, then why didn't the teams who had been approached add something, anything, to their offer to trump Buffalo? Maybe these other GM's didn't think as highly of Hodgson as some of us. Some links from back in the day: http://forum.canucks.com/topic/324907-speculation-canucks-offered-hodgson-for-john-carlson-brandon-sutter/ http://forum.canucks.com/topic/324229-trade-cody-hodgson-to-buffalo/ regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 If Kassian was playing in the talent-dark hole that is Buffalo he'd probably be pointless, -10 and a healthy scratch most nights. Buffalo is ruining Hodgson. If he stayed here Hodgson would probably be a 50-60 point center by now, anchoring our 2nd line comfortably meaning that the Kesler trade could have landed a solid defenceman from Anaheim like Lindholm. Or, Hodgson would have agitated to be traded at the end of the season because he didn't want to be the 3C on this team. And he probably would have dropped his own value in a trade because of his lack of physicality, poor defensive play, not great results at faceoffs, sorta' average skating and so on. The other thing here is that you are saying Hodgson would be a 50 - 60 point center, but if he were still here he'd still be playing with Higgins and Hansen. And as to his time in Buffalo, maybe Hodgson would have reached the 60 point mark. If that was as far as he got then I'd be disappointed considering he was playing all that time with Vanek and Pominville. Perhaps he would have reached that mark with a full season in 2012 - 13, but he certainly hasn't shown that he is capable of doing so in the two seasons since. Issues of where Kesler stated he wanted to play and how that impacted on his value put aside, you assume that just because Vancouver wouldn't want a center to replace Kesler, that Anaheim would have been willing to trade Lindholm for Kesler. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 And it all began with letting Hoff walk away. Oh c'mon. Ehrhoff wanted to follow his dream of winning the Cup. I'm sure that the Canucks didn't want to stand in his way, what with that Bieksa type of contract. The $10 million up front and ten year term he got from Buffalo had nothing to do with his choice. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Pretty much right on. And the fact he really didn't have alot of respect among the other Gm's around the league. So, you're the GM of another team, and Gillis calls you up with an offer which will get Hodgson on your team. Do you listen to the offer, or do you hang up right away and put a call block on your phone because you don't like him? regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Can't dump on Kassian's offense. Three coaches haven't given him any kind of look in the top 6. And they're right to not have done so. His defensive game is troubling. Either lazy or non-thinking on his own side of the red, he'll get a chance on the top 6 when he can show responsibility on line 3. Of course Hodgson is useless defensively, too, so the interesting comparison is with both of them on offense. But it has to be remembered that -- in the past -- Hodgson's superior point totals came when he played with Vanek and Pominville, plus lots of time on the PP. Kassian hasn't had the luxury of linemates or extra strength minutes.. This trade still won't be judged for a few years, but I have more confidence that Kassian will clue in than Hodgson will toughen up and take his line on his shoulders (as top 2 centres often have to do). Good post. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 So, you're the GM of another team, and Gillis calls you up with an offer which will get Hodgson on your team. Do you listen to the offer, or do you hang up right away and put a call block on your phone because you don't like him? regards, G. He didn't call most of them up and GM's that he did call low balled him because they didn't like him Your regards G is the most ridiculous thing on the boards, you should drop it it makes you look like your 12..... My apologies if you are 12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Kass had a great game, looked involved most of the time and used his body. Keep it going next game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 He didn't call most of them up and GM's that he did call low balled him because they didn't like him Your regards G is the most ridiculous thing on the boards, you should drop it it makes you look like your 12..... My apologies if you are 12. 1.) And as I pointed out, Gillis wanted a certain type of return for Hodgson. If a particular team didn't have that type of asset, or even if there was no identified need for Hodgson on a particular team (ie. they had at least three good centers), then why woould he waste his time contacting them? 2.) As I also pointed out earlier, if you were the GM of a team and another GM called you up with an offer for a young center with a lot of potential, are you saying you'd just hang up because you don't like this guy? Also, any GM is going to try and lowball another GM. Like or dislike has nothing to do with it. 3.) I'm very hurt by your dislike of my signing off salutation. I do it because I have such a great like and appreciation for other posters, such as yourself. I'll give your comment all the thought and consideration which it is due. On the other hand, that kind of verbal attack from you makes you look like you're 6... My apologies if you are 6. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 1.) And as I pointed out, Gillis wanted a certain type of return for Hodgson. If a particular team didn't have that type of asset, or even if there was no identified need for Hodgson on a particular team (ie. they had at least three good centers), then why woould he waste his time contacting them? 2.) As I also pointed out earlier, if you were the GM of a team and another GM called you up with an offer for a young center with a lot of potential, are you saying you'd just hang up because you don't like this guy? Also, any GM is going to try and lowball another GM. Like or dislike has nothing to do with it. 3.) I'm very hurt by your dislike of my signing off salutation. I do it because I have such a great like and appreciation for other posters, such as yourself. I'll give your comment all the thought and consideration which it is due. On the other hand, that kind of verbal attack from you makes you look like you're 6... My apologies if you are 6. regards, G. Lol, nice. Edit; I'm not being sarcastic as well... For once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Lol, nice. Edit; I'm not being sarcastic as well... For once. And I gave you a +1 for your comment on Kassian. So we're buds now? regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Gillis was an imposter. Convincing others of the merits of Gillis and his trading logic or acumen is akin to using a salutation send off on CDC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Gillis was an imposter. Convincing others of the merits of Gillis and his trading logic or acumen is akin to using a salutation send off on CDC. So you're saying that it is a good thing then? regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.