: Value of:
View Single Post
07-28-2013, 08:39 PM
Join Date: Jun 2002
Originally Posted by
Why would Cody want out? Oh right, because the team made a series of decisions that damaged Hodgson's development, starting with AV's pants-on-head-dumb treatment of his back injury, and continuing right up until they decided to "showcase" him, when he was getting a 30% offensive start ratio and playing with Vancouver's revolving door of bottom six grinders..
Cody wanted out because he didn't get the role that he (or his parents/agent) wanted to start his career. He came on a team that had 2 elite centers playing the top 2 lines. Do you bump Henrik or Kesler down to accommodate Cody? Should any rookie be entitled to that?
And if you're going to blame AV for his treatment of his back injury, why wouldn't you blame Cody's own doctors who were the first to misdiagonse that same injury? AV isn't a doctor and yes he screwed up by accepting what Cody's own family doctors had to say of his injury. That injury was first misdiagnosed by his own doctors then the Canucks team doctors, and it was only later by the Canucks team doctors that they disagnosed it properly. So blaming AV for his comments, based on what 2 different sets of doctors stated in their own initial diagnonis (again including Cody's own doctors), is bunk!
As for the role he was given, he was given sheltered minutes on the 3rd line because he was crap defensively. AV had his game plan with Henrik and Kesler and Hodgson was given the easy minutes behind them. This is a coach that just won the President's trophy (by a big margin) and didn't have a 3rd line defensive center as he likes to use, so he used Cody the way he should - and I emphasis the word "used" because it's not about what's best for the player here but what's best for the team. Would you rather have a coach that coddles a rookie player instead of doing what's best for his team's success? Maybe in Buffalo when they are rebuilding and have to put an emphasis on player development. But not on a team that is coming off the season they are, where their core was in their prime. You use every player to put them in the best position for "TEAM" success. But that word "TEAM" I know was lost on Cody from the moment he stepped in Vancouver.
Originally Posted by
The "we were just developing Cody like all our other prospects" line is bunk. While the Sedins got third line minutes early on in their careers, they were also two players with elite pedigree who got to develop on a line together. Kesler started off as a defensively oriented grinder because he's a defensively oriented ginder. Had Vancouver given Cody a decent winger, and/or set him up to feast on offensive mismatches the way most teams with two elite centers do, he's probably still a Canuck. AV's deployment strategy was wholly unique, and very, very bad for someone with Hodgson's skillset.
Had Vancouver given Cody a decent winger, you take that decent winger away from the Sedins or Kesler, and they are the horses you go with if you want team success, not to cater to a 20 YO rookie. This seems lost on some people here, like you?? There is a salary cap in the league, you can not stack every line. Most teams have 3rd line players on their 3rd line, and they play their top-6 wingers with their top centers. The Canucks top centers were Henrik and Kesler, and Cody was (and still is) no where near developed enough to overtake them and have the top wingers on the team play next to him. Cody was a rookie joining a President's trophy winning team as the #3 center on the depth chart, who was absolutely terrible defensively and couldn't handle the defensive match-ups that team's system required for a traditional 3rd line center. So who do you accommodate here? Cody? Pesonally, I go with the decisions of the coach with a proven track record coming off a franchise record setting season.
Originally Posted by
Because the GM and coach did a hell of a lot to contribute to the circumstances that led to Hodgson demanding a trade. Only somebody blindly toeing the team's line would casually omit how much of a two-way street this situation was..
I'm not someone blindly towing the team's line. I'm a die-hard Canucks fan, not a Cody fan, that has followed this team for over 30 years, and just saw them put up the best season in franchise history, with a coach who ran a team that was 1st overall in almost every team category - something that no team in the league has done since the 77 Habs. I'm going to trust in that coach to make the decisions that best serve the team's goals - winning! Not catering to what a rookie and his family demand of the team.
Again you're looking at this from a Sabres POV - a team trying to develop their young talent where the priority is not winning now, but to develop that young talent to win one day. The Canucks were not in that position. They needed Cody to do what the team needed to succeed, not what Cody needed to succeed.
And blaming the coach here is just downright stupid! Again you're criticising the decisions made by a coach who's coming off the best season in franchise history and was still able to win another President's trophy during Cody's rookie season despite the problems they had with him. How many coaches have won back to back President's since that trophy came into existence? But no we should blame the GM and coach of that franchise who's goals it is to actually win, and side with a spoiled rookie who feels he deserves special treatment and won't accept the role that the club gives him?
Originally Posted by
Maybe, maybe not. He did turn around and trade for a third "name" center after getting spanked carrying pretty much just Sedin/Kesler into the 2012 playoffs. He set the team back by trading Hodgson for something other than an immediate NHL upgrade. All his good moves (Ehrhoff, Hamhuis, Garrison, Malhotra) can be offset by his bad (Booth, Kassian, Ballard, Lapierre-Pahlsson center depth), possibly and then some..
He didn't set the team back by trading Hodgson. He moved a guy out that wanted out. A player that his teammates lost respect for and basically insulted by taping a "C" on his jersey for acting like he was entitled to something. As a GM of a team do you keep a player like that? Do you deal the core because they don't get along with the rookie?
Gillis is 2 seasons removed from GM of the year. He is the first GM in Canucks history to win a Presidents' setting the team up for one of the most successful seasons that any team has had in over 30 years. He followed that season up by winning a 2nd Presidents'. This after taking over a team that was in the bottom 10 in the league - and went on to win the division his first year and hasn't missed the playoffs since. How rare is it for a team to win back to back Presidents' following that? Yes he's made some mistakes, but which GM hasn't? He has a long leach right now given his successes, and is no where near being fired at this stage. Anyone that thinks that either has a hate on for Gillis, or just doesn't understand how difficult it is to put together the type of seasons he has. He is easily the most successful GM in franchise history, and that doesn't put you anywhere close to being fired because of a couple disappointing seasons after.
Originally Posted by
Who paid their dues on a contender? Pretty much their entire talent pool was developed elsewhere or on editions of the team that had enough trouble making the playoffs, much less winning four rounds.
There is NO ONE on the team that was given top line minutes right away. Not a single player. Daniel, Henrik, Kesler, Burrows, Hansen, Edler, Bieksa, Schneider. Every single player drafted and developed by the Canucks paid their dues - WITHOUT A SINGLE EXCEPTION! Every one of them developed under AV. Not a single one of them complained about their roles. Maybe the reason why so many Canucks fans are soured on Cody is because he has been the LONE exception. In fact since following the Canucks since the mid-70s, I can't think of a single rookie that has come into our system, under any coach or GM we've had, that has raised issues with how they were used as a rookie and demanded anything from the team. To have a rookie come on to a top team and make any kind of demands at all was just ridiculous. Again, it was so ridiculous that even his own teammates - guys that have been through the system here and developed under AV - made fun of the kid!
And that basically is the bottom line. You have a rookie that made demands about his role, his family/agent that felt they had any say in how he should be used on a team, and a locker room that lost respect for him because of those actions, what do you do as a GM of that team? You move the piece out that's creating the problems, not cater to him!
Maybe things in Vancouver could have been different with Cody if we were a rebuilding team like Buffalo and cared more about how best we could develop him as a prospect instead of how best to win as a team. That's where Cody obviously placed his priorities and it's great for him that he's joined a rebuilding Sabres team where those priorities align. They didn't in Vancouver. We cared more about winning then making a rookie happy so he can maximize his earning potential on his next contract. Good for Cody to find a situation that works for him. It didn't work in Vancouver, not with the team's goals, and not with his teammates that also saw him as an entitled rookie who's situation should take priority over team goals. Maybe in Buffalo he can develop properly and get his big contract quicker, and actually earn that "C" one day, rather than have a locker room full of teammates that joke about it by taping one on his jersey?
Last edited by NFITO: 07-28-2013 at
View Public Profile
Visit NFITO's homepage!
Find More Posts by NFITO