saucypass Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Imagine what the Oilers could have gotten for their 2012 1st overall. Yeah but I doubt Yakupov would flop as hard as he is now if he was on a team that could develop talent better than Deadmonton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeburn Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 He won't play center, he's a junior/ahl level center at most. Centers for Svhille: Ribeiro Fisher Foppa Gaustad Wilson Smith he'll be a 3rd/4th line RW with pp time. Interesting assessment. Interesting insofar as you've managed to arrive at an assessment that entirely ignores all of the actual facts... Fact: Hodgson has 3 of 4 seasons producing top 6 offense as an NHL center, compared to 1 season producing grinder winger results while played as a grinder winger. Fact: Nashville's GM and coach have already gone on record stating that Hodgson will start off as the 3rd line center, with the GM flagging that there's room for him to move up into a top 6 center role (depending how things unravel, of course). Fact: 3 of the 6 of the guys you've named above (and FYI, but 3 of 6 is 50%), don't even play center for Nashville. Perhaps you've merely looked at their names/positions on the NHL site and neglected to check out if they've even taken a regular faceoff for the last few seasons? You clearly don't think much of the kid, and fair enough too, but you'd be better off flagging his actual deficiencies than trying to pretend that someone who has 3 seasons playing center in the NHL, including 2 campaigns as a 1st line center pacing for 68pts and 44pts while leading his bottom dweller team in production, is "junior/ahl level center at most". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 By turning a 10th overall pick into nothing, they clearly screwed up somewhere along the way. I know you wrote an awful lot but your entire argument stems from this fallacy and the rest is mostly "maybe we could have done X" with no evidence that those options were ever viable or realistic. Show me who is trading substantial value for players selected with high picks who have struggled? Zach Hamill got waived and left unsigned, as did Cam Barker and Gilbert Brule. They don't even have NHL careers. This is what happens to the majority of bad picks. They turn into no assets at all. Instead MG and AV turned Cody into a viable second chance with Kass. What is a rookie who has barely made the NHL and not dazzled since junior (which many players do) worth in your mind? These kids are a dime a dozen and GMs know it. They're worth a swap or a pick so low that the trade isn't worth it. You act like there are TONS of options for teams trying to offload struggling rookies but they are all trying to do just that, every single year, and getting nothing for them. Why even waste the contract spot, risk waiver eligibility and take the chance? At a certain point, when a kid doesn't make it they're barely worth any pick at all. Any belief that one of the 300 junior players signed by NHL teams each year is somehow worth significant assets is a fantasy on your part. Canuck fans should be thanking their lucky stars that they were able to get Prust because neither Kass nor Cody were worth a proven NHL player at any point in their careers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filthycanuck Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I know you wrote an awful lot but your entire argument stems from this fallacy and the rest is mostly "maybe we could have done X" with no evidence that those options were ever viable or realistic. Show me who is trading substantial value for players selected with high picks who have struggled? Zach Hamill got waived and left unsigned, as did Cam Barker and Gilbert Brule. They don't even have NHL careers. This is what happens to the majority of bad picks. They turn into no assets at all. Instead MG and AV turned Cody into a viable second chance with Kass. What is a rookie who has barely made the NHL and not dazzled since junior (which many players do) worth in your mind? These kids are a dime a dozen and GMs know it. They're worth a swap or a pick so low that the trade isn't worth it. You act like there are TONS of options for teams trying to offload struggling rookies but they are all trying to do just that, every single year, and getting nothing for them. Why even waste the contract spot, risk waiver eligibility and take the chance? At a certain point, when a kid doesn't make it they're barely worth any pick at all. Any belief that one of the 300 junior players signed by NHL teams each year is somehow worth significant assets is a fantasy on your part. Canuck fans should be thanking their lucky stars that they were able to get Prust because neither Kass nor Cody were worth a proven NHL player at any point in their careers. Any point? Hodgson was released because of 1 bad season and a bad contract. Before this season the guy put up decent numbers on a crappy team, led the sabres in scoring once (twice), i think his value back then is a lot more than just a warm nhl body so to say in any point of their careers, keep that to kassian. To put the same fault on both players is assenine. One guy had at least some sort of success in the nhl and got paid, the other is probably one lazy season and injury away from being demoted to the ahl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Any point? Hodgson was released because of 1 bad season and a bad contract. Before this season the guy put up decent numbers on a crappy team, led the sabres in scoring once (twice), i think his value back then is a lot more than just a warm nhl body so to say in any point of their careers, keep that to kassian. To put the same fault on both players is assenine. One guy had at least some sort of success in the nhl and got paid, the other is probably one lazy season and injury away from being demoted to the ahl. Hodgson was consistently one of 10 worst defensive players in the entire league. That was evident with the Canucks and even more so with the Sabres. He was certainly offensively gifted, just as Kassian was in his own way, but both completely failed to work on their defensive game. The problem was not talent but attitude and it was a problem they both shared. The only reason you're defending Hodgson is because you didn't watch him every game like you did Kass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bassi13 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 I know you wrote an awful lot but your entire argument stems from this fallacy and the rest is mostly "maybe we could have done X" with no evidence that those options were ever viable or realistic. Show me who is trading substantial value for players selected with high picks who have struggled? Zach Hamill got waived and left unsigned, as did Cam Barker and Gilbert Brule. They don't even have NHL careers. This is what happens to the majority of bad picks. They turn into no assets at all. Instead MG and AV turned Cody into a viable second chance with Kass. What is a rookie who has barely made the NHL and not dazzled since junior (which many players do) worth in your mind? These kids are a dime a dozen and GMs know it. They're worth a swap or a pick so low that the trade isn't worth it. You act like there are TONS of options for teams trying to offload struggling rookies but they are all trying to do just that, every single year, and getting nothing for them. Why even waste the contract spot, risk waiver eligibility and take the chance? At a certain point, when a kid doesn't make it they're barely worth any pick at all. Any belief that one of the 300 junior players signed by NHL teams each year is somehow worth significant assets is a fantasy on your part. Canuck fans should be thanking their lucky stars that they were able to get Prust because neither Kass nor Cody were worth a proven NHL player at any point in their careers. You're describing these Zach Hammil types, who are more in line with a Nicklas Jensen type who years after showing nothing is going to be waiver fodder when eligible. A 16 goal, 33 points in 63 games rookie season is something. 4 years after his draft, and with injury concerns sure, but that's a whole lot to show at the top level, more than most ever get a chance to show during the peak of their careers. Some picks like Jensen and Beach have never showed enough to even begin a discussion on getting value back for them. Hodgson and his rookie season had shown more than Baertschi who did get value back for his team at the same age. And he carries the same concerns as a purely offensive talent, and he couldn't muster the same output that Cody did in his one year. But he was worth something, despite not even being able to crack the main squad at the same age and time removed from the draft like Hodson did, instead bouncing to and from the AHL. You can argue it's a fallacy based on the lack of evidence to support it, but making poor analogies the other way doesn't prove the opposite argument. This way we would be stuck assuming nothing, because most GMs, especially Gilis, do not offer hypothericals and offered trades for fans to mull over. We shouldn't assume they're not mulling multiple possibilities at a given time like this. I can't prove that Hodgson could have been traded for something other than Kassian, but I think it's ignoring common sense to assume they didn't. What I'm proposing is that they saw something in Kassian that wasn't there, and they didn't want to lose the years of development that any draft pick would bring, along with every other variable it does. If we're speaking in tangible evidence the only thing we know for sure regarding what management expected out of the trade was Gillis chiming in that he expected Kassian to contribute right away. A piece of rhetoric to alleviate fan/media concerns about the trade to be sure, but when it comes to analyzing what goes on in a GMs head, and in their situation room, tangibles don't exist. Unless you're Benning and you continue to tell the fans near everything, lol. Clearly you don't agree, so I'm not continuing the discussion past this post. I don't disagree with the base logic behind your post, but I don't think it quite fits the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THERETOOL Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 nashville is a good team with some serious d depth .. if cody doesn't have to worry as much about d he can probably be pretty effective in gathering points . maybe hell be 1 dimensional but it may be all nashville really needs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filthycanuck Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 nashville is a good team with some serious d depth .. if cody doesn't have to worry as much about d he can probably be pretty effective in gathering points . maybe hell be 1 dimensional but it may be all nashville really needs I agree. Hodgson is in a much better situation than kassian is. Therrien vehemenetly praises a 2 way game and kassian doesnt have much of an iq to spell his name right much less play defence. If therrien can bench galchenyuk, hell have a seatbelt on the bench ready for kassian. Laviolette is more in the line of " singers sing, dancers dance" kind of coach. Hodgson wont need to be stressed defensively as nashville has 3 studs on the blueline and an elite calibre goalie carrying the mail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 You're describing these Zach Hammil types, who are more in line with a Nicklas Jensen type who years after showing nothing is going to be waiver fodder when eligible. A 16 goal, 33 points in 63 games rookie season is something. 4 years after his draft, and with injury concerns sure, but that's a whole lot to show at the top level, more than most ever get a chance to show during the peak of their careers. Some picks like Jensen and Beach have never showed enough to even begin a discussion on getting value back for them. Hodgson and his rookie season had shown more than Baertschi who did get value back for his team at the same age. And he carries the same concerns as a purely offensive talent, and he couldn't muster the same output that Cody did in his one year. But he was worth something, despite not even being able to crack the main squad at the same age and time removed from the draft like Hodson did, instead bouncing to and from the AHL. You can argue it's a fallacy based on the lack of evidence to support it, but making poor analogies the other way doesn't prove the opposite argument. This way we would be stuck assuming nothing, because most GMs, especially Gilis, do not offer hypothericals and offered trades for fans to mull over. We shouldn't assume they're not mulling multiple possibilities at a given time like this. I can't prove that Hodgson could have been traded for something other than Kassian, but I think it's ignoring common sense to assume they didn't. What I'm proposing is that they saw something in Kassian that wasn't there, and they didn't want to lose the years of development that any draft pick would bring, along with every other variable it does. If we're speaking in tangible evidence the only thing we know for sure regarding what management expected out of the trade was Gillis chiming in that he expected Kassian to contribute right away. A piece of rhetoric to alleviate fan/media concerns about the trade to be sure, but when it comes to analyzing what goes on in a GMs head, and in their situation room, tangibles don't exist. Unless you're Benning and you continue to tell the fans near everything, lol. Clearly you don't agree, so I'm not continuing the discussion past this post. I don't disagree with the base logic behind your post, but I don't think it quite fits the situation. 1. You need to check your facts because my examples definitely showed serious potential at the NHL level. These are direct comparables and nothing like Jensen or Beach. Cam Barker outscored Seabrook in his first full season in the NHL and Brule had 28 points in his first season with CBJ. They were lost for nothing and it's clear that you vastly overrate these types of players given the history of value (ie. none) that teams have gotten for them. 2. You claim that these failed top 10 picks are worth more than what they were dealt for, yet your best evidence to the contrary is no example at all, just an assurance that MG "mulled it over" and that Cody wasn't worth something else is "ignoring common sense". Common sense would dictate you could actually find a comparable but you haven't even thought to look at something so simple or you would have already brought it up in this discussion. That says to me that you're basing this entire argument on that you feel Cody was worth more. Without having even taken a moment to think to yourself "Hmmmm, this seems like a bum deal. I should check if it was." it's evident that you jumped straight from "I think this was a bum deal" to "Therefore it is a bum deal". We have a term for that on CDC, it's "Cody Fanboy". And while that really is enough to end this debate, I just have to call attention to the fact that you seem to believe that it's bad asset management to trade former top 10 pick for another former top 10 pick. But you seem to think it's good asset management to drop a round and a half in the draft, after wasting years on development, like the Flames did with Sven. Unreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 The "dumb" player with the attitude problem scored 8g and 2a and was a +3 in his last 16 games. He was recovering from an injury and then playing with an injury. The "smart" hard-done-by player scored 2g and 0a and was a -4 in his last 16 games. Cody better work his arse off this summer if he wants to succeed. I picked 16 because that is the amount of games Kassian played in a row before injuring himself. If you use the "he played with the sedins" arguement, then you have to also include usage for Hodgsons stats. So many discounted Hodgson playing on the 1st line as a difference in stats until he got demoted. Then it became "unfair" to compare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeburn Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 The "dumb" player with the attitude problem scored 8g and 2a and was a +3 in his last 16 games. He was recovering from an injury and then playing with an injury. The "smart" hard-done-by player scored 2g and 0a and was a -4 in his last 16 games. Cody better work his arse off this summer if he wants to succeed. I picked 16 because that is the amount of games Kassian played in a row before injuring himself. If you use the "he played with the sedins" arguement, then you have to also include usage for Hodgsons stats. So many discounted Hodgson playing on the 1st line as a difference in stats until he got demoted. Then it became "unfair" to compare. If the point you're trying to make is that two entirely different kids playing under entirely different circumstances are likely to produce entirely different results, then, um, well, okay. Obviously Kassian/Hodgson are "linked" forever due the trade, but at this stage in their respective careers the most important thing they have in common is that they both need to work it this summer and be prepared to show it next season or their NHL tenures could be short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 If the point you're trying to make is that two entirely different kids playing under entirely different circumstances are likely to produce entirely different results, then, um, well, okay. Obviously Kassian/Hodgson are "linked" forever due the trade, but at this stage in their respective careers the most important thing they have in common is that they both need to work it this summer and be prepared to show it next season or their NHL tenures could be short. Why was it ok when Cody had the better stats? The point I am making is that there is still a lot of pro-Cody bias. Agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeburn Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Why was it ok when Cody had the better stats? The point I am making is that there is still a lot of pro-Cody bias. Agree. Why was what okay? (and fyi, Hodgson's advanced stats are actually still better, go figure) And there is still a lot of pro-Kassian bias. And that's okay too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bassi13 Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 1. You need to check your facts because my examples definitely showed serious potential at the NHL level. These are direct comparables and nothing like Jensen or Beach. Cam Barker outscored Seabrook in his first full season in the NHL and Brule had 28 points in his first season with CBJ. They were lost for nothing and it's clear that you vastly overrate these types of players given the history of value (ie. none) that teams have gotten for them. 2. You claim that these failed top 10 picks are worth more than what they were dealt for, yet your best evidence to the contrary is no example at all, just an assurance that MG "mulled it over" and that Cody wasn't worth something else is "ignoring common sense". Common sense would dictate you could actually find a comparable but you haven't even thought to look at something so simple or you would have already brought it up in this discussion. That says to me that you're basing this entire argument on that you feel Cody was worth more. Without having even taken a moment to think to yourself "Hmmmm, this seems like a bum deal. I should check if it was." it's evident that you jumped straight from "I think this was a bum deal" to "Therefore it is a bum deal". We have a term for that on CDC, it's "Cody Fanboy". And while that really is enough to end this debate, I just have to call attention to the fact that you seem to believe that it's bad asset management to trade former top 10 pick for another former top 10 pick. But you seem to think it's good asset management to drop a round and a half in the draft, after wasting years on development, like the Flames did with Sven. Unreal. Why? Because I know what you mean, and I disagree. And I know what you mean, and disagree. You can throw around deragotory terms like like "ignorance", "Cody fanboy", and equating me to a NHL 15 GM if you wish, but I'm not going to continue a discussion to the point where I'm throwing around hot air with you for no reason. If you really want to continue talking so that you could get the last point in, go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filthycanuck Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 The "dumb" player with the attitude problem scored 8g and 2a and was a +3 in his last 16 games. He was recovering from an injury and then playing with an injury. The "smart" hard-done-by player scored 2g and 0a and was a -4 in his last 16 games. Cody better work his arse off this summer if he wants to succeed. I picked 16 because that is the amount of games Kassian played in a row before injuring himself. If you use the "he played with the sedins" arguement, then you have to also include usage for Hodgsons stats. So many discounted Hodgson playing on the 1st line as a difference in stats until he got demoted. Then it became "unfair" to compare. big whoop, 16 games really? Nick bonino put up 10 goals the first month and half of the season, nobodys mistaking him for a 50 goal scorer, what matters is the bottom line. If Hodgson had a normal regular season, people would have their mouth shut, but one bad season, everyone starts puffing out their chests acting like we had the more dominant player in Kassian. Hodgson had a better season as a Canuck than any of Kassians tenure here, despite playing regularly with far far inferior linemates playing 8 minutes a game. Its funny how the Kassian fan boys love to dig deep on the these advanced stats, like how many goals a minute kassian gets, how much piss he puts in a cup in the third period, how often kassian picks his nose when we are on the power play, but yet forgetting that Hodgson has almost as many GOALS as Kassian has total POINTS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 At the end of the day, Cody Hosgson is a dweeb and no fancy stats can change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoKnows53 Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 big whoop, 16 games really? Nick bonino put up 10 goals the first month and half of the season, nobodys mistaking him for a 50 goal scorer, what matters is the bottom line. If Hodgson had a normal regular season, people would have their mouth shut, but one bad season, everyone starts puffing out their chests acting like we had the more dominant player in Kassian. Hodgson had a better season as a Canuck than any of Kassians tenure here, despite playing regularly with far far inferior linemates playing 8 minutes a game. Its funny how the Kassian fan boys love to dig deep on the these advanced stats, like how many goals a minute kassian gets, how much piss he puts in a cup in the third period, how often kassian picks his nose when we are on the power play, but yet forgetting that Hodgson has almost as many GOALS as Kassian has total POINTS Hodgson was given a way longer leash than Kassian in his trade year. He had significant powerplay time and he played with the likes of Raymond and Hansen. Weren't people in love with Raymond once he left the Canucks? But still both Hansen and Raymond were better players than Hodgson, so to call them inferior just shows your hockey knowledge. Finally he was given majority o-zone starts because of his defensive deficiencies and lack of speed. Quit fanboying over Daddy's boy, you'll always play 2nd fiddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Some numbers and musings. In 2011 - 12 Hodgson scored 41 points (19g 22a) over the season. People were suggesting that Hodgson would have done better if he had better wingers than Higgins and Hansen, who are better on defense, but not without some offense. It has also been noted that he got a large number of O-zone starts to his shifts, which would have helped him achieve a higher point production, and also shield the team from his weaker defensive game. In 2012 - 13 (lockout), Hodgson showed some of the offensive promise people believed he had. Potentially, he could have put up 30 goals and 70+ points assuming he scored at the pace he did in the 48 game season. Some suggested that this was in large part due to him getting a lot of ice time on Buffalo's 1st line with Vanek and Pominville, who do have a lot more offensive potential than Higgins and Hansen. It has been argued that, while Hodgson's numbers increased due to his time with Vanek and Pominville, there wasn't a corresponding increase in their offensive output due to them being on a line with Hodgson. In 2013 - 14, Hodgson's first full season with Buffalo, he put up a mere 44 points (20g 24a) in 72 games, once again playing most of his time in Buffalo's top-6 (I'm sure someone will correct me if my memory is incorrect here). Vanek and Pominville were gone by this point and it showed in Hodgson's numbers. This being said, it could still be argued that he did have as good or better offensively skilled players in this season than he had in 2011 - 12 with Vancouver. Make of it what you will. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filthycanuck Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Hodgson was given a way longer leash than Kassian in his trade year. He had significant powerplay time and he played with the likes of Raymond and Hansen. Weren't people in love with Raymond once he left the Canucks? But still both Hansen and Raymond were better players than Hodgson, so to call them inferior just shows your hockey knowledge. Finally he was given majority o-zone starts because of his defensive deficiencies and lack of speed. Quit fanboying over Daddy's boy, you'll always play 2nd fiddle. Longer leash in his trade year? really? Oh the fact Hodgson would screw up first 5 minutes of a game and be consequently be benched for the entire game? or was it he avged less ice time while producing more than your boy Kassian? I seem to recall the province, the fans wanting Hodgson to get more ice time because he was producing consistently. Significant powerplay? oh you mean the last 30 seconds he gets in the 2nd unit and they produced. You seem to have an inkling that being on the powerplay means its automatic stats, doesn't work that way. What about his regular shifts, as i recall he put up quite a bit of points even strength too. Then again you probably missed that cuz your probably finishing up your shift in McDonalds so not suprising that you'd miss the game. IThe first unit was Kesler Sedin Sedin, they need another centre for the 2nd unit. what were they supposed to do ..put Malhotra and Lapierre? Raymond was hardly a great player during that year, wildly inconsistent. You know during that year we had 3 guys in the top 10 in faceoff percentage ( Malhotra, Kesler, H.Sedin) and a half decent Lappiere taking faceoffs, we didnt need Hodgson taking defensive draws, theyd trot out Malhotra, Kesler, and Lappiere for those. Why would they put a rookie to take them when they had that many good faceoff men? I suppose that common sense doesn't work too well for you seeing that you probably dropped out of the 10th grade after getting placed in the locker a few times LOL I'll bet you a couple bucks, which is probably what you literally have in your bank account that Hodgson outscores Kassian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChwkCanux Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Why is this still a debate? Cody wouldn't have a spot in the Canucks current line up anyway. I wish him well with his new team, but he likely never becomes the player he was projected to be when drafted. Maybe he scores 40 points this year, maybe 20. Kassian is in that same range. Neither reached their potential and maybe never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.