HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Hodgson Trade Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-19-2013, 12:14 AM
  #826
doobie604
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
Likely because Lou and his camp isn't being a daily pain in the ass.
Gm's job, deal with tough personnel situations. He held all the card so why get rid of him at that time. Who cares if parents and agents are whining, I'm sure it's not the first time and it won't be the last. he's shown he have lots of patients when it comes to dealing with other players who wanted out so why jump the gun. Coho didn't show bitterness on or off the ice, felt more like MG had to say something because the whole world was questioning his move at the time. This time we're the ones trading away naslund for Alex what's his name.

doobie604 is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 12:39 AM
  #827
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
 
Sergei Shirokov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the ES View Post
Newsflash for "faceoff percentage" trumpeters: if you're "winning" (typically undefined, anyway) between 45 - 54% of faceoffs - IE, practically the entire league's range - you're winning 1 of 2 faceoffs. Nothing more, nothing less. Is Max Lapierre, at 50.4%, really any better than Hodgson, at 46.1%? The answer is no, not really. That means that out of 100 draws taken, Lapierre will probably "win" 4 more than Cody will. "Win", of course, mostly being undefined and 50/50, anyway, and 4/100 "better" amounts to 1 draw every 2 or 3 games.

Faceoff % is just another example of the unnecessary analysis for the sake of analysis amongst these so-called "advanced statisticians". In almost all cases, it's just not going to affect a game's outcome that much.

And as for your last paragraph - Roberto Luongo's also requested a trade, why hasn't Gillis dealt with that? Why did he feel so compelled to dump Cody Hodgson as soon as he could, yet he's taking a diametrically different strategy with Lou?
To dump Cody as soon as he could???

He held onto him for an entire year. The issues were on-going, the rumour is the request was asked for after the finals. MG held onto him until his value was high enough to bring back a young player with high upside.

If that trade was available at the beginning of the year I bet he would have made the deal.


And faceoff percentage, yes 50% is better than 46%. You can act like this stuff is irrelevant all you want, but even last game, he lost a faceoff and Ovechkin scored off the draw, his loss directly resulted in a GA. and being on the 1st unit for everything, that will happen alot.

Sergei Shirokov is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 12:41 AM
  #828
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
 
Sergei Shirokov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the ES View Post
The Sturm contract was one that was executed by our GM only a few months earlier.

And you clearly don't seem to understand the value of cap space, which is legitimate. In the NBA, cap space is typically the prime consideration of one side of any trade. It's going to be very similar in the NHL, if it's not already.

It was a reasonable gamble, in theory, to trade for Booth, but it didn't work, and that ultimately lands on the shoulders of our GM.
Yeah Sturm was a risk that didn't pay off, but MG did a great job turning that aswell as Sammuelsson, both depreciating assets, into a top 6 forward in David Booth.

But MG never gets credit for that.

It was a great trade even now, it is unfortunate injuries have hit Booth, but he has played well alot of his time in Vancouver, last year went on a great run before the injury, and would ahve scored 20 last year, this year he has been great. Just another injury.

Injuries happen to everyone, its the way it is unfortunately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jigsaw99 View Post
Booth's contract was for 4 years and Sammy and Sturm was for 1 more year. The salary dump was on us that trade.

Sergei Shirokov is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 12:58 AM
  #829
doobie604
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
Yeah Sturm was a risk that didn't pay off, but MG did a great job turning that aswell as Sammuelsson, both depreciating assets, into a top 6 forward in David Booth.

But MG never gets credit for that.

It was a great trade even now, it is unfortunate injuries have hit Booth, but he has played well alot of his time in Vancouver, last year went on a great run before the injury, and would ahve scored 20 last year, this year he has been great. Just another injury.

Injuries happen to everyone, its the way it is unfortunately.
I wouldn't call it a great job since 4mill can be better spent at the fa market, and Samuelson did just as well if not better when he came back from injuries. Could of signed jäger to fix our pp.

doobie604 is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 01:02 AM
  #830
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
 
Sergei Shirokov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doobie604 View Post
I wouldn't call it a great job since 4mill can be better spent at the fa market, and Samuelson did just as well if not better when he came back from injuries. Could of signed jäger to fix our pp.
Could we have signed Jagr? Maybe Jagr had priorities and interests in where he wanted to go aswell?

Sergei Shirokov is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 01:11 AM
  #831
Zarpan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RezChi View Post
Funny how Gillis used Schroeder as a reason why they traded Hodgson away.
Any luck finding that link? Guess you can post a retraction if you can't find it.

Zarpan is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 01:13 AM
  #832
CanucksSayEh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarpan View Post
Any luck finding that link? Guess you can post a retraction if you can't find it.
Center depth was a reason. Schroeder is part of that. It's really not a left field comment.

CanucksSayEh is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 01:17 AM
  #833
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
Yeah Sturm was a risk that didn't pay off, but MG did a great job turning that aswell as Sammuelsson, both depreciating assets, into a top 6 forward in David Booth.

But MG never gets credit for that.

It was a great trade even now, it is unfortunate injuries have hit Booth, but he has played well alot of his time in Vancouver, last year went on a great run before the injury, and would ahve scored 20 last year, this year he has been great. Just another injury.

Injuries happen to everyone, its the way it is unfortunately.
This year he has been great? .

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 01:25 AM
  #834
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
 
Sergei Shirokov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
This year he has been great? .
Great one of our better players in his time here, has been a bit snakebitten but he has done alot more than anyone else.

Sergei Shirokov is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 01:34 AM
  #835
RezChi
Registered User
 
RezChi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarpan View Post
Any luck finding that link? Guess you can post a retraction if you can't find it.
It's on CDC with Gillis talking about the trade and Centre depth saying Schroeder that he had an excellent 2~3 months or something like that iirc

RezChi is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 01:36 AM
  #836
Momesso
Registered User
 
Momesso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,593
vCash: 500
The Booth trade was poor only in hindsight that the cap space could have been used elsewhere.

But asset-wise it was good. Injuries are tough to predict and he's been decent while healthy.

Sturm signing was inexplicable though.

Momesso is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 12:33 PM
  #837
doobie604
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
Could we have signed Jagr? Maybe Jagr had priorities and interests in where he wanted to go aswell?
Jagr has no ties with Dallas, he said him self, he was wanted by Dallas and thats why he went there. At 3.5 or whatever he's earning, it would be a better option than Booth especially in a shortened season.

doobie604 is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 03:17 PM
  #838
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
 
Sergei Shirokov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doobie604 View Post
Jagr has no ties with Dallas, he said him self, he was wanted by Dallas and thats why he went there. At 3.5 or whatever he's earning, it would be a better option than Booth especially in a shortened season.
Alright.

Whats the price? We aren't giving up Schroeder+ for him.

I would do Rodin + 3rd.

Sergei Shirokov is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 03:54 PM
  #839
doobie604
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
Alright.

Whats the price? We aren't giving up Schroeder+ for him.

I would do Rodin + 3rd.
I think we might of missed the boat on that one. Would be nice to keep Samuelson and the sign JJ in the offseason as replacement, but now we just don't have the cap for it since Jagr is on a 2 year deal.

doobie604 is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 04:15 PM
  #840
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
 
Sergei Shirokov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doobie604 View Post
I think we might of missed the boat on that one. Would be nice to keep Samuelson and the sign JJ in the offseason as replacement, but now we just don't have the cap for it since Jagr is on a 2 year deal.
Jagr is only on a 1 year deal.

Sergei Shirokov is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 04:29 PM
  #841
doobie604
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
Jagr is only on a 1 year deal.
Thought was 2 years, but yeah he's the type of player we should go after. Playoff experience, good on the PP, got no speed left but strong on the puck. Jagr, Whitney, and Daley for pick, prospect, and dump would make sense for us. Add some proven vets and a speedy D to the lineup.

doobie604 is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 07:08 PM
  #842
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 10,033
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
His numbers have been dropping like a rock after a decent start. Over his last 10-15 games he's had a -13 or so Corsi on per 60 min. Same story we saw last season. Decent start in terms of possession numbers, but as the season wore on those got worse and worse.

And that still doesn't answer my question. Name the last cup winner to have a top 6 center that gives up a goal per game or who can't outproduce his opposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
It can't be answered because no cup winners have had centers like Hodgson in their top 6.
Forget top 6, I doubt you'd even find a top 9 center that would've been poor at possession. Perhaps on the wing, but he wasn't willing to play out of position even when put with Kesler. Should've stuck with it ala Seguin and not complained if he wanted his top 6 ice time.

But I'm sure the next time he scores a goal this will all go out the window...

vanuck is offline  
Old
03-20-2013, 10:38 AM
  #843
hockeywoot
Registered User
 
hockeywoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: China
Posts: 940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the ES View Post
The Sturm contract was one that was executed by our GM only a few months earlier.

And you clearly don't seem to understand the value of cap space, which is legitimate. In the NBA, cap space is typically the prime consideration of one side of any trade. It's going to be very similar in the NHL, if it's not already.

It was a reasonable gamble, in theory, to trade for Booth, but it didn't work, and that ultimately lands on the shoulders of our GM.
Calculated risk.
They wanted to shed cap, we wanted to acquire a top 6 player.
Was worth it IMO.Hasn't worked out.
We took a chance to fill a top 6 position, without using our big trading piece in Schneider.

Not every move is gonna be a homerun.

hockeywoot is offline  
Old
03-20-2013, 10:48 AM
  #844
hockeywoot
Registered User
 
hockeywoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: China
Posts: 940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
To dump Cody as soon as he could???

He held onto him for an entire year. The issues were on-going, the rumour is the request was asked for after the finals. MG held onto him until his value was high enough to bring back a young player with high upside.

If that trade was available at the beginning of the year I bet he would have made the deal.


And faceoff percentage, yes 50% is better than 46%. You can act like this stuff is irrelevant all you want, but even last game, he lost a faceoff and Ovechkin scored off the draw, his loss directly resulted in a GA. and being on the 1st unit for everything, that will happen alot.

This.

People forget that at the beginning of last season, Hodgson's trade value wasn't nearly as high. Injuries, and average AHL numbers, led to questions whether his game would transfer to the NHL level.

Should realize that trading isn't an exact science.
If you need to trade a player of this calibre, you could you
realistically get back?

You can't fit a perfect deal, catering to ALL your needs.
There simply aren't that many players available.

If there is a comparable player out there, why would they be looking to trade said player and take Hodgson instead?

Who was available?...
Schenn...nope.
Skinner...nope
Seguin...nope
Johansen...probably not
Carlson...nope
Huberdeau....absolutely not
Couture...nope
Benn....dream on

hockeywoot is offline  
Old
03-20-2013, 11:32 AM
  #845
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doobie604 View Post
Gm's job, deal with tough personnel situations. He held all the card so why get rid of him at that time. Who cares if parents and agents are whining, I'm sure it's not the first time and it won't be the last. he's shown he have lots of patients when it comes to dealing with other players who wanted out so why jump the gun. Coho didn't show bitterness on or off the ice, felt more like MG had to say something because the whole world was questioning his move at the time. This time we're the ones trading away naslund for Alex what's his name.
My guess....

They had no intention of using him the #3 center spot down the stretch and in the playoffs. They had no desire to protect him against the opposition like they had been. He also had stopped putting up points. So, when he's sitting on the bench or in the pressbox at the most important time of the year the only thing that happens is his value drops. Add to that a reasonable expectation that a trade request was coming following the season (remember he had to be talked out of such a thing the previous summer) and his value drops more. So value wise he likely moved Hodgson when it was at its highest.

The other reason is that he had a list of players that he would accept in a Hodgson deal and one of those players became available. Had Kassian not become available (like Clifford, Carlson, and Sutter weren't. The three known players on the short list...at least according to Friedman) Hodgson wouldn't have been moved.

Now on the who cares if his parents, agents etc are whining....if you are spending too much time dealing with it that it eats into the time you need to do other things you need to think about ending it one way or the other. and you are wrong about not showing bitterness on or off the ice...he was knowingly bitter following the playoffs the previous season that his agent had to talk him into not requesting a trade. He was knowingly bitter about not getting the icetime he wanted (these are things his agent said btw). He was obviously upset over the AV injury situation (and the flipside to your can easily be said that it isn't the first time a coach has said something stupid and it's the players job to get over it) It may not have been public knowledge but it was certainly known in the organization and likely the dressing room.


Last edited by tantalum: 03-20-2013 at 11:44 AM.
tantalum is offline  
Old
03-20-2013, 11:41 AM
  #846
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
But that's not the issue. Hodgson wanted (or demanded depending on whom you believe) top 6 ice time right now. If he was to stay on the Canucks he'd have to be given 2nd line C ice time even with a healthy Kesler. A team that has designs on winning the cup cannot have a player at his current abilities getting the defensive responsibilities that a top 6 player must handle. A supposed elite team simply cannot have a top 6 center who they have to shelter or build their entire lineup around to overcome his weaknesses.

He may be able to improve over time to the point where he can be a good enough 2 way player to be a top 6 center on a great team but he's not there yet.
I'm not sure I completely agree with your assessment of Hodgson, but only because I think he has an interesting skillset. I completely agree that in terms of possession, he's well below what you'd want right now. I would argue that the Buffalo defense is pretty miserable, though, so it's not completely surprising. But he's got an elite shot.

More importantly, to me the ice time request was also about his issues with Vigneault and management over how his injury was handled. I think that was just the easy way out of the team and that's why his agent pursued it so hard.

You're right that just building a line around a player's deficiencies is difficult to do, but I also think smart asset management is about that, to some extent. Hodgson might always be a guy that needs wingers that play better defense than he does -- I completely agree. He might be a 12-15% shooter who needs guys like Kesler/Ott on his wing, but I'm not sure a line like that couldn't be a good 2nd line right now on a good team.

At the very least, he seems like a player that can be a 1st unit PP guy, play secondary forward minutes, and provide good value to a team, depending on what his contract is.

The real question is whether Gillis got the right value back, in my opinion. At a certain point, moving him was a foregone conclusion. We'll see.

Personally, I really like watching Hodgson, if only because I'm curious to see how he develops. He really does have a ridiculously good shot, so he might overcome some of these obstacles.

Proto is offline  
Old
03-20-2013, 11:48 AM
  #847
Alan Jackson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Langley, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,405
vCash: 500
It will never happen, but I would love to see the Canucks reacquire Hodgson, if only to see the complete 180 some here would do on their opinion of him.

Alan Jackson is offline  
Old
03-20-2013, 11:56 AM
  #848
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
It would be the second 180 on him in Canucks Land. There were a few folks that tagged him as a prima donna from basically his first training camp. They were widely ridiculed, until Gillis did basically did the same, himself.

 
Old
03-20-2013, 12:04 PM
  #849
The Kassian Train
228 LBS of Pain
 
The Kassian Train's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Jackson View Post
It will never happen, but I would love to see the Canucks reacquire Hodgson, if only to see the complete 180 some here would do on their opinion of him.
Same thing could be said about Kassian when he develops no?

The Kassian Train is offline  
Old
03-20-2013, 12:09 PM
  #850
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Kassian Train View Post
Same thing could be said about Kassian when he develops no?
Just look at the Kassian thread from the first 6 games he had.

Tiranis is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:13 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.