HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Speculation: The Hodgson Kassian Trade (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1167663)

Nation 04-16-2012 01:19 AM

The Hodgson Kassian Trade
 
How bad is it hurting Vancouver right now

Erza Scarlet 04-16-2012 01:19 AM

I say neither team has won or lost.

Connor McJesus 04-16-2012 01:20 AM

I don't think it's anything else than 3-0 LA with Hodgson in

ZZamboni 04-16-2012 01:21 AM

C'mon Defiant!!


Your judging 2 rookies now???

Wow that's bad :shakehead

palindrom 04-16-2012 01:21 AM

Gillis could had a lot more for Hodgson, but he wisely avoided to trade him inside the division/conference.

At least you wont have to face Hodgson 6 time per years in the future. It worth it.

Nation 04-16-2012 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vsevolod Bobrov (Post 48145009)
I don't think it's anything else than 3-0 LA with Hodgson in


Really because I thought the problem was scoring, and Hodgson seemed to know how to do it alot better than Kassian. Especially with Daniel out, just my 2cents.

EDIT: Also, what was with the timing of the trade? I would have thought another cup run WITH Hodgson instead of Kassian would have been ideal.

Pucklington 04-16-2012 01:23 AM

Well the way Hodgson is lighting it up in the playoffs....

Where you going with this? Would Hodgson be the saviour for the Canucks against LA? He obviously would be their best player with scrubs like Henrik and Ryan on the team.

Yossarian54 04-16-2012 01:24 AM

It certainly means we have less in terms of scoring options, and the 2nd PP is worse IMO. Overall I think it doesn't affect us that much given the general ****ness of the defence in games 1 and 2, maybe still 3-0 or possibly 2-1 down. Personally I am of the opinion that the loss of Ehrhoff has affected us more in this series.

604 04-16-2012 01:24 AM

You know Hodgson stunk down the stretch and played a large role in the Sabres not making the playoffs right?

Neither team won or lost yet.

Nation 04-16-2012 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJOpus (Post 48145279)
You know Hodgson stunk down the stretch and played a large role in the Sabres not making the playoffs right?

Neither team won or lost yet.

Im not looking for a trade winner at this moment. Im simply implying that I think the Nucks would have been better off keeping him for this run, anybody know what his ppg was with the nucks this year?

Lucbourdon 04-16-2012 01:27 AM

kassian is playing 4min a game.

Nation 04-16-2012 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucbourdon (Post 48145471)
kassian is playing 4min a game.

Jesus really, I hadnt looked.

Lucbourdon 04-16-2012 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Defiant (Post 48145527)
Jesus really, I hadnt looked.

Av has been downright ********.

Alberta tough 04-16-2012 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucbourdon (Post 48145471)
kassian is playing 4min a game.

I get that Kassian is young, but why trade for a guy that brings toughness that the Canucks needed and only use him so little?

caley 04-16-2012 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Defiant (Post 48144907)
How bad is it hurting Vancouver right now

I was talking about this the other day with someone. I have no idea why the Canucks made that trade at the deadline. To me, the team was playing well, Hodgson was scoring, I wouldn't have messed with the team, save for a couple picks for players deals (Like the Pahlsson deal). Then, I would've talked to Buffalo after the season about the trade.

I mean, it makes all the sense in the world going forward: Canucks acquire a big body winger with power forward potential and send packing a guy who's not terribly happy about his ice-time and might be unwilling to sign a hometown discount deal like others before him that will impact the cap in the future. I just don't get why they made the deal in-season.

And, no, the series might not be any different now, it might still be 3-0. But, when Daniel went down, Vancouver could have moved Hodgson up to the 2nd line, tried Kesler on Henrik's wing etc., it just would have given them more scoring options than Kassian currently does. After all, if Hodgson had scored one goal tonight, everything would be different.

Connor McJesus 04-16-2012 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Defiant (Post 48145175)
Really because I thought the problem was scoring, and Hodgson seemed to know how to do it alot better than Kassian. Especially with Daniel out, just my 2cents.

3 goals in 20 games with Buffalo. Yeah, he woulda make Quick his *****.

caley 04-16-2012 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yossarian54 (Post 48145259)
It certainly means we have less in terms of scoring options, and the 2nd PP is worse IMO. Overall I think it doesn't affect us that much given the general ****ness of the defence in games 1 and 2, maybe still 3-0 or possibly 2-1 down. Personally I am of the opinion that the loss of Ehrhoff has affected us more in this series.

I think this is probably the truest theory that's not given enough credence around here. As a non-Canuck fan living in BC, I thought it was finally how casually Canuck fans and the media basically dismissed the departure of a 50 point defenceman with a casual: "Oh well, Edler can step up" or "Tanev is ready".

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJOpus (Post 48145279)
You know Hodgson stunk down the stretch and played a large role in the Sabres not making the playoffs right?

Neither team won or lost yet.

But he didn't "stink" with the Canucks. He was playing quite well when he was traded. And the OP isn't asking for a winner so much as whether the deal is hurting Vancouver now.

BoHorvatFan 04-16-2012 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caley (Post 48145961)
I think this is probably the truest theory that's not given enough credence around here. As a non-Canuck fan living in BC, I thought it was finally how casually Canuck fans and the media basically dismissed the departure of a 50 point defenceman with a casual: "Oh well, Edler can step up" or "Tanev is ready".


But he didn't "stink" with the Canucks. He was playing quite well when he was traded. And the OP isn't asking for a winner so much as whether the deal is hurting Vancouver now.

He was in a big slump when he was traded and struggling defensively.

Although his power play skills could have been used in these three games.


It's a long-term trade though.

Nation 04-16-2012 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vsevolod Bobrov (Post 48145811)
3 goals in 20 games with Buffalo. Yeah, he woulda make Quick his *****.


I know he wasnt stellar in Buffalo, but I thought he was playing fairly well with the nucks this season up until the point of the trade, definitely a better ppg than with Buff, no?

Nation 04-16-2012 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan (Post 48146021)
He was in a big slump when he was traded and struggling defensively.

Although his power play skills could have been used in these three games.


It's a long-term trade though.

EDIT: NVM was wondering the ppg of Hodgson.

Yossarian54 04-16-2012 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Defiant (Post 48146083)
EDIT: NVM was wondering the ppg of Hodgson.

0.53 with the Nucks, 0.4 with the Sabres.

Breaking it down further, 0.73 in Dec/Jan and 0.34 in Oct/Nov & Feb with the Nucks. Struggled a bit in Feb. His advanced stats were not great, but he did score get 5G 5A on the powerplay in Vancouver with not a great deal of PP time.


Quote:

Originally Posted by caley (Post 48145961)
I think this is probably the truest theory that's not given enough credence around here. As a non-Canuck fan living in BC, I thought it was finally how casually Canuck fans and the media basically dismissed the departure of a 50 point defenceman with a casual: "Oh well, Edler can step up" or "Tanev is ready".

Yeah I agree, the "Edler can step up" was disingenuous given Edler was already on pace for 50pts even when Ehrhoff was here. Tanev probably shouldn't be anywhere near a #1PP at this stage. The problem with letting Ehrhoff go is he wasn't replaced. Fair enough if you want to try and resurrect Ballard as a top 4 d-man, but we already knew AV was disinclined to use him on the PP and his shot is average. Hamhuis goes all-right there but he is already playing 22mins/game before PP time. Bieksa ditto.

King of Anarchy 04-16-2012 02:09 AM

Not a whole lot a GM can do when a player requests a trade.

dma0034 04-16-2012 02:20 AM

Maybe the series is 2-1 but the Kings are winning the series with or without Hodgson. Hodgson wanted out and wanted to be traded to a team that he could become a #1/2 center. Buffalo seemed to fit (though Ennis has made this more difficult).

canadianmagpie 04-16-2012 02:21 AM

The Canucks biggest strength last year was the depth in scoring, we had a third line of Higgins - Malhotra - Torres who, prior to Malhotra's injury, was contributing goals. This year, Malhotra was replaced by Hodgson who didn't have Malhotra's defensive ability, but made up with it with a stronger offensive presence. However, the Canucks decided that having two shutdown lines was more important than having a third scoring line. So the biggest strength of the Canucks was lost and now to shut down the Canucks, the opposition now just has to concentrate on two lines instead of three.

Should add, that the Kings are outworking the Canucks and most of the Canucks don't deserve to be in this series.

Mitts McCann 04-16-2012 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of Anarchy (Post 48147237)
Not a whole lot a GM can do when a player requests a trade.

This. Hodgsons asked for a trade numerous times. His contract was coming up and I think we could have seen a Turris situation. Also, hodgson started becoming invisible and a serious defensive liability when the games got tougher nearing the end of the season. His stock was at it's highest and the Canucks identified a weakness in there organization. A mean power forward with high potential. They made that move before his stock fell. Furthermore, hodgson would have to wait until henrik or Kesler dropped off before taking ice time away. You can't think of it as hodgson for kassian this post season. It's hodgson for Pahlsson. Kassian is for the future. They didn't wanna trade hodgson for a vet in Ufa years. Pahlsson is ten times better defensively and they realized that if hodgsons production was gonna drop they couldn't have him be a liability. Plus the Canucks could get a better young center while trading one of their goalies in the offseason. Is that good enough for you. /thread


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:54 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.