Thread: Value of: Cody Hodgson
View Single Post
Old
07-29-2013, 01:20 AM
  #103
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFITO View Post
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?
Acting like it was an either/or situation where Cody bumps an established center down to third line minutes or plays the deployments he got is wrong. Most championship teams find ways to accommodate three centers, usually not running their checker into the ground or limiting their possession controlling first line to offensive zone starts only.

Quote:
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!
How were his own people the first to misdiagnose the injury given that it happened at an organization-supervised training event?

Quote:
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.
It's weird that you're putting full faith in the Canucks management for knowing bar none "what's best for the team" given their actual results. And a 30% offensive zone start ratio with 40 point on a good day linemates doesn't exactly equal "sheltered" deployments.

And why is Kesler suddenly above defensive deployments, given that he actually scored more at ES the last time he got them? What's good for the development of the young player would have also been good for the team, considering how many scoring depth issues they've had over the years.

And sure, top that terrible paragraph off with more baseless histrionics.

Quote:
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.
Kesler with Higgins and Hansen and Hodgson with random scoring winger X is a win/win situation. Patrick Sharp was a "third line center" when the Hawks won the Cup in 2010, but his role is drastically different than what Hodgson was deployed in, and accommodating such a role would have been better for both team and player.

Quote:
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.
That statistical dominance nearly got bounced in the first round, was incredibly boom/bust in the playoffs for how "dominant" it was in the regular season, hasn't been replicated since, and that coach has also been fired. Why are we appealing to his authority again? Why is Hodgson's success mutually exclusive from Vancouver's?

Quote:
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?
Because that club got thrashed in an alarming amount of their losses and then bounced in the first round the next season, and that core is defined by losing playoff series due to a lack of scoring depth past their best 3 players.

And more "Cody is a selfish cancer" histrionics.

Quote:
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?
No, you don't create a perfect storm of ineffective linemates, defensive zone draws, and limited icetime on a team with secondary scoring issues in the ******* first place. And if you do, you trade him for actual NHL roster upgrades because you're trying to win the Stanley Cup, not patch a hole that barely existed in the first place three years later if Kassian develops.

Quote:
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.
More appealing to the authority of someone who hasn't actually won anything, with one successful season + playoffs under his belt. AV and MG put together a team that can win in the regular season in a terrible division, and almost win the Cup once in 6 years while burning out in the playoffs to various degrees every other year. That's great and all, but that's not an infallible track record.

Quote:
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!
This is more hyperbole. And AV didn't develop the Sedins.

Quote:
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!
Not let that situation get to that point in the first place by doing any combination of A) playing Hodgson in more offensive situations B) acquiring a talented young winger to develop alongside him and provide lots of secondary scoring or just C) playing him slightly more in general.

He made those demands because the team had no interest in investing in his future, even when it was in everybody's self interest.

Quote:
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?
On what planet does a team that's pieces away from winning a Cup not want one of those pieces to develop?

The entire anti-Hodgson Vancouver argument really comes down to the terrible assumption that Cody's pre-showcase deployments were the only things he could be afforded if the Canucks wanted to win hockey games, but those two things weren't actually mutually exclusive.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline   Reply With Quote