Hey, are Buffalo fans satisfied with Hodgson for Kassian?
I recently heard it was a mistake for the Sabres from a Winnipeg press memeber but every time I look at the score sheet Cody is on it. Admittedly don't watch any of their games so just wondering what the fans' take is on his play.
I need a stronger adjective. Adore. I choose that.
I shouldn't say he directly called it a mistake. It seemed implied. Something to the effect of, "who's fault is it when Regier trades for Player, Player and Hodgson?" in response to the Ruff firing.
Yeah, they often point to the Ehrhoff signing as a bad move as well. Brilliant signing IMO. Why use Ehrhoff to take a shot at Darcy (when it was a brilliant move) when you have Leino staring you in the face.
I think it means exactly what it sounds like. He hasn't been the same player he was last season.
He is a young player trying to find his way. I don't think you'll ever have to question his drive. Seems like a confidence issue.
It may be an issue of role. Something that's been hinted at a lot over the years is that Ruff let his players figure out what they were supposed to be doing out there in terms of role. Rolston seems much more directive in his approach. I think Foligno, who is still just a second year pro, got a little lost to start the year and hasn't gotten back to the simple, straight game he is so good at. It's there at times -- he's willing to finish checks and drive the net most of the time -- but there are also those moments when he tries to go full-Ennis rather than simply giving it to Ennis so Ennis can go full-Ennis on the rush.
Roles and responsibilities. I've liked him more sense the benching. Getting his head clear and then renewing his efforts was not a bad thing for him at this point.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
It may be an issue of role. Something that's been hinted at a lot over the years is that Ruff let his players figure out what they were supposed to be doing out there in terms of role. Rolston seems much more directive in his approach. I think Foligno, who is still just a second year pro, got a little lost to start the year and hasn't gotten back to the simple, straight game he is so good at. It's there at times -- he's willing to finish checks and drive the net most of the time -- but there are also those moments when he tries to go full-Ennis rather than simply giving it to Ennis so Ennis can go full-Ennis on the rush.
Roles and responsibilities. I've liked him more sense the benching. Getting his head clear and then renewing his efforts was not a bad thing for him at this point.
So more points, hits, less Pim and better +/- then Kassian. For how brutal Foligno has been this year he still has ,is and will be better then Kassian. For their careers Foligno has 6 more points in 29 less gamers.
Kassian = 2 points in his last 16 games. The Sedins carried him to his early season success. We robbed them for Hodgson, as Cody is much better and not to mention we gave them the lesser of our 2 power forwards in the trade .
There seems to be a pattern with you and a couple others about trades. When evaluating there MUST be a winner and a loser in trades. You seem to come at it from that mindset. Why?
You (and a few others) can't possibly bring yourself to evaluate it from a needs filled perspective. You also evaluate worth based mainly on points acquired. Why?
Objective hockey fans see this as a win win for both clubs. Not only when the trade happened, not only today, but also 3, 5, 7 years from now. Kassian, Foligno, and CoHo will continue to develop and be equally valued (appreciated) in their respective clubs.
^
Why can't you possibly see this?
Your winner/loser mentality when it comes to all trades (I've seen you comment on) is simply weird.
News flash .... There doesn't need to be a winner/loser in trades for it to be a good trade.
Last year Foligno outscored and outhit Kassian in far less games. This season he has outscored and outhit him again. If you want to think that Vancouver got a good return for Hodgson that is your right to your opinion. Kassian has utterly disappeared since the start of the season. Foligno is better not really debatable. You can say that Kassian might have more "potential" but when it comes down to actual NHL production Foligno has produced more then Kassian. A lot more. Kassian is the one with more NHL games, he just has less goals, points, and hits. Kassian isn't even averaging 2 hits a game. For a bruising power forward that's unacceptable. Atleast when Foligno wasn't scoring he atleast threw his body around.
And as for Hodgson, it's not debatable who is better or has been better. Hodgson is in the top 20 of center scoring. He has nearly 3x as many points. And as all 3 of the players mentioned here are not that strong defensively, I will judge them on physicality (for marcus and Kassian) and scoring (for Hodgson and the other 2).
We won the trade merely because of the fact we turned someone who was sulking and lethargic here into a top 6 center who will anchor one of our top 2 lines for 10 + years . Vancouver can be happy with Kassian that's fine, but any non biased fan will tell you Hodgson has been so much better then Kassian. Hodgson reminds me of a young Chris Drury. That's why I'm excited about the trade and think that we got the better end of it.
There seems to be a pattern with you and a couple others about trades. When evaluating there MUST be a winner and a loser in trades. You seem to come at it from that mindset. Why?
You (and a few others) can't possibly bring yourself to evaluate it from a needs filled perspective. You also evaluate worth based mainly on points acquired. Why?
Objective hockey fans see this as a win win for both clubs. Not only when the trade happened, not only today, but also 3, 5, 7 years from now. Kassian, Foligno, and CoHo will continue to develop and be equally valued (appreciated) in their respective clubs.
^
Why can't you possibly see this?
Your winner/loser mentality when it comes to all trades (I've seen you comment on) is simply weird.
News flash .... There doesn't need to be a winner/loser in trades for it to be a good trade.
Agreed. Plus, powerforward prospects take longer to develop because they're expected to score, fight and hit consistently game in and game out. Bertuzzi didn't break out until he was 25, so patience is needed for both Kassian and Foligno. Not saying they'll be as good as Bertuzzi was in his prime, but we need to be patient with them.
You can say that Kassian might have more "potential" but when it comes down to actual NHL production Foligno has produced more then Kassian.
Potential and current production are very separate concepts with little overlap. That's the point. You can't dismiss the concept when evaluating the value of a trade, especially for young players like these guys.
Potential and current production are very separate concepts with little overlap. That's the point. You can't dismiss the concept when evaluating the value of a trade, especially for young players like these guys.
Exactly. You'll need to wait around 5 years before declaring a "winner" and a "loser", if there is one at all...
Exactly. You'll need to wait around 5 years before declaring a "winner" and a "loser", if there is one at all...
Which is why I think posters with the same mindset as Layne are so sadly shortsighted and come to conclusions about trades months after a trade instead of years. And MUST have a winner and loser in all trades they evaluate. It's rather sophomoric to be honest. And as some have said, the best MOST accurate evaluation will happen 3-5 years AFTER the trade, not months. Especially with younger players. But I guess you can't expect some to understand that. Therefore their evaluation carries little weight on these forums.
There seems to be a pattern with you and a couple others about trades. When evaluating there MUST be a winner and a loser in trades. You seem to come at it from that mindset. Why?
You (and a few others) can't possibly bring yourself to evaluate it from a needs filled perspective. You also evaluate worth based mainly on points acquired. Why?
Objective hockey fans see this as a win win for both clubs. Not only when the trade happened, not only today, but also 3, 5, 7 years from now. Kassian, Foligno, and CoHo will continue to develop and be equally valued (appreciated) in their respective clubs.
^
Why can't you possibly see this?
Your winner/loser mentality when it comes to all trades (I've seen you comment on) is simply weird.
News flash .... There doesn't need to be a winner/loser in trades for it to be a good trade.
I disagree with the first underlined sentence. You can sell me on potential all you want, but until Kassian proves that he can be a successful power forward, there is no way for you to make that claim. Hodgson on the other hand has shown he can be, at worst a 2nd line center.
Right now Vancouver fans are hanging their hats on the idea that Kassian may be the next Bertuzzi. He may very well end up being the next Everett Sanipass.
To the second underlined statement, I agree, there doesn't always HAVE to be a winner. However, sometimes there clearly is! In this case I think Vancouver will be kicking themselves for a long time to come.
Only time will tell. It is nice, though, to not have to be the fan base justifying why it wasn't a horrible trade. From a sabres fan perspective, there is no way to call this a bad trade. The jury is still out for Vancouver fans (as evident by any thread discussing the trade on their forum).
I disagree with the first underlined sentence. You can sell me on potential all you want, but until Kassian proves that he can be a successful power forward, there is no way for you to make that claim. Hodgson on the other hand has shown he can be, at worst a 2nd line center.
Right now Vancouver fans are hanging their hats on the idea that Kassian may be the next Bertuzzi. He may very well end up being the next Everett Sanipass.
To the second underlined statement, I agree, there doesn't always HAVE to be a winner. However, sometimes there clearly is! In this case I think Vancouver will be kicking themselves for a long time to come.
Only time will tell. It is nice, though, to not have to be the fan base justifying why it wasn't a horrible trade. From a sabres fan perspective, there is no way to call this a bad trade. The jury is still out for Vancouver fans (as evident by any thread discussing the trade on their forum).
We whine about every trade, so it's nothing special
Kassian potential is rarer, but he's also risker. It's a risk you gotta take sometimes.
There seems to be a pattern with you and a couple others about trades. When evaluating there MUST be a winner and a loser in trades. You seem to come at it from that mindset. Why?
You (and a few others) can't possibly bring yourself to evaluate it from a needs filled perspective. You also evaluate worth based mainly on points acquired. Why?
Objective hockey fans see this as a win win for both clubs. Not only when the trade happened, not only today, but also 3, 5, 7 years from now. Kassian, Foligno, and CoHo will continue to develop and be equally valued (appreciated) in their respective clubs.
^
Why can't you possibly see this?
Your winner/loser mentality when it comes to all trades (I've seen you comment on) is simply weird.
News flash .... There doesn't need to be a winner/loser in trades for it to be a good trade.
A good trade is one where both clubs win. If one club ends up losing badly then it hams the relationship, causing problems for future trades. Thats why Darcy is 'supposed' to have such a bad reputation among GM's.
Essentially I'm agreeing with you, in a really long winded way.
7 goals scored last night, Kassian had 0 points and was -2.
This is a case where stats don't tell the whole story. Kassian had a great game last night, and TSN even put a little highlight reel together during one of the intermissions to show how well he was playing. Protecting the puck very well and using his size and strength to get around defenders - he might not have scored but it was one his best every games as a Canuck imo.
