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
03-22-2013, 03:32 PM
  #926
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
30/30 power forward with elite net presence on the PP and brings a physical dimension Hodgson simply can't. Thank you Gillis!
Sorry - who is that "30/30" player?

EDIT: Ah, gotcha, nevermind.

 
Old
03-23-2013, 01:28 AM
  #927
nameless1
Apathy is great!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,127
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetsAlternate View Post
I agree Shirokov would not have been developed well under AV. As I mentioned earlier, AV develops players in a backwards fashion: defense first, offense second.

I do know that Shirokov was intrigued when his rights were traded to the Panthers, but he was already committed to his contract with CSKA Moscow and wanted to honor it. The contract expires after the 2013-14 season, coincidentally right after the 2014 Sochi Olympics. Perhaps this was a career decision for him to be a part of that 2014 Olympic team.

Here's an excerpt from an interview conducted in July 2011:

http://canucksarmy.com/2011/7/20/a-c...ergei-shirokov


Here's an excerpt from a year later, last July (July 2012):

http://canucksarmy.com/2012/7/7/serg...y-canucks-fans




Now that he has earned enough money to justify his career as a hockey player, he has a year to make the Russian National Team and then will be a free agent. If he plans to return to the NHL, that will be his opportunity. He will be 28 years old. I don't think he'll be on this year's World Championship team as he was injured for most of the season. He has accomplished his goal of being a marquee player in the KHL, though.
Thanks for putting up the quotes.
The interviews showed that he tried and wanted to be an NHLer.

Yeah, who knew how Shirokov will turn out?
He could very well be the one that got away.

Still, I am always worried about players who can't skate all that well and are not very physical.
I can't recall anyone like that that had success in the new NHL.

He might not have been given that much of a shot here, but I am not too upset about it.
Honestly, I still doubt he would have made much impact.
To me, he just had a little too many holes in his game to be successful long term.

nameless1 is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 02:21 AM
  #928
Zarpan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless1 View Post
Thanks for putting up the quotes.
The interviews showed that he tried and wanted to be an NHLer.

Yeah, who knew how Shirokov will turn out?
He could very well be the one that got away.

Still, I am always worried about players who can't skate all that well and are not very physical.
I can't recall anyone like that that had success in the new NHL.

He might not have been given that much of a shot here, but I am not too upset about it.
Honestly, I still doubt he would have made much impact.
To me, he just had a little too many holes in his game to be successful long term.
Shirokov put in a good effort, but I don't think his skillset translates too well to the NHL. He was good in the AHL, but wasn't dominating it at 24-25. Don't think he'd have much more impact than an Ebbett, Tambellini, or Gordon.

Zarpan is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 02:34 AM
  #929
vanuck
#Gaunce4GM
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarpan View Post
Shirokov put in a good effort, but I don't think his skillset translates too well to the NHL. He was good in the AHL, but wasn't dominating it at 24-25. Don't think he'd have much more impact than an Ebbett, Tambellini, or Gordon.
There was always that promise of upside. 8 games is nowhere near enough to establish what sort of ceiling he had. Personally I would've liked to see him back for one more year, but he needed to start making money. I was pretty disappointed they didn't offer him the 1-way. I didn't think they'd cheap out over something like that, considering who the owner is.

Plus, on our farm team it's practically impossible to dominate the AHL given how it just seems to stifle a prospect's numbers down there. He probably did as well as he could've given how offensively-challenged the Moose always were - 2nd in team scoring in 09-10 and led them the season after.

vanuck is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 02:37 AM
  #930
Zarpan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoolChamp View Post
40/40 1st line center. Elite one timer slapshot on the PP. Thanks a lot Gillis!
He has good skills, but has basically put up strong offensive numbers for 30 games only. I'd like to see a longer period of consistent production before saying his ceiling is sky high. For example, Raymond and Booth have both put up better numbers over 40 game stretches before.

Zarpan is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 02:42 AM
  #931
Zarpan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
There was always that promise of upside. 8 games is nowhere near enough to establish what sort of ceiling he had. Personally I would've liked to see him back for one more year, but he needed to start making money. I was pretty disappointed they didn't offer him the 1-way. I didn't think they'd cheap out over something like that, considering who the owner is.

Plus, on our farm team it's practically impossible to dominate the AHL given how it just seems to stifle a prospect's numbers down there. He probably did as well as he could've given how offensively-challenged the Moose always were - 2nd in team scoring in 09-10 and led them the season after.
It would have been interesting to see what he could have turned into, but I don't think his ceiling was super high. Maybe Kyle Wellwood as a best case scenario.

Zarpan is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 03:57 AM
  #932
vanuck
#Gaunce4GM
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarpan View Post
It would have been interesting to see what he could have turned into, but I don't think his ceiling was super high. Maybe Kyle Wellwood as a best case scenario.
I don't think he would've turned into an elite player or something either, but even a Kyle Wellwood would've been very good for a 6th round pick. Cheap skill developed internally is going to be so important starting next season. If you can retain it while still paying them on an ELC that's huge.

It was just that not really having a stable RW for the 2nd line for almost all of last year (I like to think of Higgins and Booth as LW ideally) makes the decision to let him go look worse than it should have.

vanuck is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 01:04 PM
  #933
Waveburner
Registered User
 
Waveburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
The only reason the Henrik comparison is interesting at all to me is because Henrik was an undersized, slow, exceptionally intelligent center who worked very hard in the off-season -- never a player whose dedication to bettering himself you'd question. I think all of those things apply to Hodgson, as well. I also think things may have turned out differently if his injury hadn't been handled as it was, but it's a moot point.

The odds of any player becoming Henrik Sedin are exceptionally low, but I am curious to see what the development curve of a guy like Hodgson is. Analytics are fairly new to hockey, and it's possible that we'll find in the future that certain things are under/over valued.

At the very least, Hodgson looks like a guy that will excel at the PP facet of hockey, which is important.
Referring to Henrik and Hodgson as both simply being "undersized" is not very accurate. Hank is 6'2" and Hodgson, while listed at 6'0" is quite clearly smaller than that on the ice. It's infinitely easier for a 6'2" player to excel with mediocre skating than a sub-6'0" player.

Cody will likely be a very good NHLer for a long time but his attitude will have to change drastically to be an important cog in a team that wins anything. His ego is through the roof, he thinks he is above playing proper defense and wants ice time on a silver platter. I'm not sure his skating will ever get to a point where you can trust him against true number one centers. I see his upside as a high end second line center who will always need some degree of sheltering from tough matchups. That is extremely valuable, assuming he doesn't end up overpaid.

Personally I'm glad this malcontent prima donna is gone. The only question that should matter is whether Kassian was a good enough return. I like Kassian a lot but we won't know for sure whether he was a good pickup for probably 3-4 more years.

Waveburner is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 01:21 PM
  #934
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,038
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waveburner View Post
Referring to Henrik and Hodgson as both simply being "undersized" is not very accurate. Hank is 6'2" and Hodgson, while listed at 6'0" is quite clearly smaller than that on the ice. It's infinitely easier for a 6'2" player to excel with mediocre skating than a sub-6'0" player.

Cody will likely be a very good NHLer for a long time but his attitude will have to change drastically to be an important cog in a team that wins anything. His ego is through the roof, he thinks he is above playing proper defense and wants ice time on a silver platter. I'm not sure his skating will ever get to a point where you can trust him against true number one centers. I see his upside as a high end second line center who will always need some degree of sheltering from tough matchups. That is extremely valuable, assuming he doesn't end up overpaid.

Personally I'm glad this malcontent prima donna is gone. The only question that should matter is whether Kassian was a good enough return. I like Kassian a lot but we won't know for sure whether he was a good pickup for probably 3-4 more years.
Pretty much how I feel. I don't miss Hodgson and don't think he'll ever be capable of being a top line center on a contender because of his skating and defensive deficiencies, but I do still have concerns about whether the Canucks got good value back in targeting Kassian. I just think the whole organization has started to become blinded by size.

opendoor is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 01:58 PM
  #935
Scurr
Bear G
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
I just think the whole organization has started to become blinded by size.
Maybe, but Chicago, Boston and L.A. obviously had size and it contributed to all of them beating us on their way to the cup.

Kassian is going to be a very good player.

Scurr is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 02:42 PM
  #936
Windy River
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 580
vCash: 500
If I had to sum up this trade, I would say it has turned out every bit as badly as us, the media, and the city of Vancouver expected the day it was signed.

Windy River is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 02:50 PM
  #937
m9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 50
I will be interested to see how Hodgson's contract negotiations go and what gets worked out. One of the benefits that was talked about at the time of the trade was the extra ELC year on Kassian's contract which will be key because of our cap situation next year.

m9 is online now  
Old
03-23-2013, 02:59 PM
  #938
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,038
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Maybe, but Chicago, Boston and L.A. obviously had size and it contributed to all of them beating us on their way to the cup.

Kassian is going to be a very good player.
That's partly true, though I'd argue size was less important than skill, depth, and health for those series. I mean, look at the list of Bruins who managed at least 0.5 points per game in their 2011 playoffs:

Krecji (6', 188 lbs)
Bergeron (6'2", 194 lbs)
Marchand (5' 9", 183 lbs)
Ryder (6', 192 lbs)
Horton (6'2", 229 lbs)
Recchi (5'10", 185 lbs)
Kelly (6', 190 lbs)

Hardly a list of behemoths; most of them are smaller than the Sedins. Sure they had some guys with size, but they were far less important than the players who actually produced results.

Maybe I'm wrong about the Canucks' current methods, but I do wonder how Gillis would approach a Hodgson/Beach choice today? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he went with the latter now.

opendoor is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 03:02 PM
  #939
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 23,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Maybe I'm wrong about the Canucks' current methods, but I do wonder how Gillis would approach a Hodgson/Beach choice today? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he went with the latter now.
I would. Kassian was targeted because he's a guy with size and skill. Most players he has tried to draft have both size AND skill, not one or the other. Beach never had that type of skill.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 03:06 PM
  #940
Lemurion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 145
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoolChamp View Post
40/40 1st line center. Elite one timer slapshot on the PP. Thanks a lot Gillis!
Hodgson's doing well personally on an offensive level. His line has 36 of the Sabres' 84 goals this season which works out to about 43% of their scoring and is a +1. In comparison, the Canucks' top line has 24 of 83 goals (29%) and no individual player is less than a +11 (Henrik's a +17). Cody's linemates are a +4 in Vanek and a -1 in Pominville.

Given that Buffalo is 14th in goals for, and in 25th place overall it's pretty clear that the net benefit to the team from Cody's line isn't really that great. Sure, they're scoring a lot, but it's not going to do a ton of good in the long term if they can't keep the puck out of their net more.

Lemurion is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 03:19 PM
  #941
Tryampled
Registered Snoozer
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurion View Post
Hodgson's doing well personally on an offensive level. His line has 36 of the Sabres' 84 goals this season which works out to about 43% of their scoring and is a +1. In comparison, the Canucks' top line has 24 of 83 goals (29%) and no individual player is less than a +11 (Henrik's a +17). Cody's linemates are a +4 in Vanek and a -1 in Pominville.

Given that Buffalo is 14th in goals for, and in 25th place overall it's pretty clear that the net benefit to the team from Cody's line isn't really that great. Sure, they're scoring a lot, but it's not going to do a ton of good in the long term if they can't keep the puck out of their net more.
so Hodgson is the reason the Sabres are bad defensively? how many sophomore players coud have that much of an impact while being a near PPG...? Hodgson will continue to improve at all aspects after a few season one would think, considering he was a solid two-way player in junior.

Tryampled is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 03:31 PM
  #942
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 23,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoolChamp View Post
so Hodgson is the reason the Sabres are bad defensively? how many sophomore players coud have that much of an impact while being a near PPG...? Hodgson will continue to improve at all aspects after a few season one would think, considering he was a solid two-way player in junior.
The problem is that he hasn't been a good defensive player at any level since and hasn't shown any willingness to improve in that area.

It's not even that Hodgson can't improve defensively, it's that it's impossible to know whether his offensive output will hold up when he's not cheating to get out of the zone early or being more responsible in the offensive zone.

It's pretty clear that Hodgson, right now, is chasing that big contract that comes with production like this. If he gets paid $5m+ based on this season, I'm convinced he won't live up to it.

What makes guys like Sedins special is that they can both produce high numbers AND give up very few goals against because they're responsible players all over the ice.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 03:40 PM
  #943
Scurr
Bear G
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
The problem is that he hasn't been a good defensive player at any level since and hasn't shown any willingness to improve in that area.

It's not even that Hodgson can't improve defensively, it's that it's impossible to know whether his offensive output will hold up when he's not cheating to get out of the zone early or being more responsible in the offensive zone.

It's pretty clear that Hodgson, right now, is chasing that big contract that comes with production like this. If he gets paid $5m+ based on this season, I'm convinced he won't live up to it.

What makes guys like Sedins special is that they can both produce high numbers AND give up very few goals against because they're responsible players all over the ice.
Good points. This is why it makes so much sense that the Canucks insist our young guys play defence, that way you're only paying for effective production come contract time and you don't allow them to develop bad habits that will need to be broken later.

Scurr is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 05:46 PM
  #944
jigsaw99
Registered User
 
jigsaw99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
The problem is that he hasn't been a good defensive player at any level since and hasn't shown any willingness to improve in that area.

It's not even that Hodgson can't improve defensively, it's that it's impossible to know whether his offensive output will hold up when he's not cheating to get out of the zone early or being more responsible in the offensive zone.

It's pretty clear that Hodgson, right now, is chasing that big contract that comes with production like this. If he gets paid $5m+ based on this season, I'm convinced he won't live up to it.

What makes guys like Sedins special is that they can both produce high numbers AND give up very few goals against because they're responsible players all over the ice.
I actually don't think Henrik is that good defensivly in his own zone. Remember that OT goal that CBJ scored where Henrik just lets Calvert walk in like its nothing. The Sedins just don't let many goals in because they have the puck the entire time. Once they get it, they can keep in forever. Their best defense is their offensive. But Henrik is by no means a furious checker once the opponent have the puck in their zone.

jigsaw99 is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 05:56 PM
  #945
Scurr
Bear G
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigsaw99 View Post
I actually don't think Henrik is that good defensivly in his own zone. Remember that OT goal that CBJ scored where Henrik just lets Calvert walk in like its nothing. The Sedins just don't let many goals in because they have the puck the entire time. Once they get it, they can keep in forever. Their best defense is their offensive. But Henrik is by no means a furious checker once the opponent have the puck in their zone.
The big difference is positioning. The twins don't cheat for offensive chances, Hodgson has been doing a ton of it. Hank can look a little weak on some plays but he's rarely out of position.

Scurr is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 06:14 PM
  #946
Ronning On Empty
Moderator
Formerly BleachClean
 
Ronning On Empty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 19,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
That's partly true, though I'd argue size was less important than skill, depth, and health for those series. I mean, look at the list of Bruins who managed at least 0.5 points per game in their 2011 playoffs:

Krecji (6', 188 lbs)
Bergeron (6'2", 194 lbs)
Marchand (5' 9", 183 lbs)
Ryder (6', 192 lbs)
Horton (6'2", 229 lbs)
Recchi (5'10", 185 lbs)
Kelly (6', 190 lbs)

Hardly a list of behemoths; most of them are smaller than the Sedins. Sure they had some guys with size, but they were far less important than the players who actually produced results.

Maybe I'm wrong about the Canucks' current methods, but I do wonder how Gillis would approach a Hodgson/Beach choice today? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he went with the latter now.


That's the thing about BOS, they aren't that big. It just seems that way when they cycle. So one does wonder about this directive from the Canucks. Why are they so size focused now? When BOS isn't a team based on size at forward. Personally, I believe it was because of Ozone pressure. In the BOS series, it seemed like BOS's forwards could cycle at will. Tiring out the Canucks D. On the opposite end, the Canucks could gain the zone but were largely eliminated against the wall.

With bigger forwards, it's far easier to shield the puck and cycle, thereby tiring out the Dmen on the other side. Tired Dmen then start to make more mistakes... Which opens things up for everyone else.

But do these forwards necessarily need to be big to do that? Marchand was a buzz saw. Peverley, Ryder and Recchi also helped. None of them big by NHL standards. So it is peculiar that the Canucks came away with such a conclusion.

On the other hand, you see teams like EDM struggle without size that can play.

We also see the game within the game, where if the PP fails, what else does the team do to keep other teams at bay? Kassian represents a prime deterrent.

The team may be becoming too size focused. But when a GM sees a deficiency, it's only natural to try and remedy it with as many tries as possible. Until it's no longer a concern. I look forward to the day when this team can draft players with vastly divergent skillsets, but that have a roughly equal chance to make the NHL. The better teams do it all the time. Big/short/whatever... When a team can draft a Lucic and a Marchand a draft apart, you know that they know what they are doing.


Last edited by Ronning On Empty: 03-23-2013 at 06:20 PM.
Ronning On Empty is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 06:21 PM
  #947
vanuck
#Gaunce4GM
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,129
vCash: 500
Up front I think we were bigger than or at least on par with the Bruins, but on D they had much more size.

vanuck is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 06:34 PM
  #948
Ronning On Empty
Moderator
Formerly BleachClean
 
Ronning On Empty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 19,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
Up front I think we were bigger than or at least on par with the Bruins, but on D they had much more size.

Which is fine because this D is built more to move the puck out of the zone quickly, instead of crushing opposition forwards against he boards.

So if the team is already bigger than the Bruins, there can't still be such a focus on size, can there?

Or maybe we are all over thinking this and Gillis has identified two specific player types that carry the most value in the NHL: The PMD and the PWF.

Ronning On Empty is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 06:35 PM
  #949
Zarpan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoolChamp View Post
so Hodgson is the reason the Sabres are bad defensively? how many sophomore players coud have that much of an impact while being a near PPG...? Hodgson will continue to improve at all aspects after a few season one would think, considering he was a solid two-way player in junior.
Buffalo gives up 4.16 goals per 60 minutes of even strength time while he's on the ice, and 1.95 goals per 60 minutes while he's off the ice, so I think the chances that he takes to produce offensively also comes with a defensive cost.

Vanek's missed a few games and is at 3.42 goals per 60 minutes of even strength time while he's on the ice, and 2.45 goals per 60 minutes while he's off the ice, so it looks like Hodgson's not helping the line defensively there.

He can certainly improve over time, but I don't know if he'll have to sacrifice a bit of offence to do so.

Zarpan is offline  
Old
03-23-2013, 06:36 PM
  #950
LolClarkson*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
That's partly true, though I'd argue size was less important than skill, depth, and health for those series. I mean, look at the list of Bruins who managed at least 0.5 points per game in their 2011 playoffs:

Krecji (6', 188 lbs)
Bergeron (6'2", 194 lbs)
Marchand (5' 9", 183 lbs)
Ryder (6', 192 lbs)
Horton (6'2", 229 lbs)
Recchi (5'10", 185 lbs)
Kelly (6', 190 lbs)

Hardly a list of behemoths; most of them are smaller than the Sedins. Sure they had some guys with size, but they were far less important than the players who actually produced results.

Maybe I'm wrong about the Canucks' current methods, but I do wonder how Gillis would approach a Hodgson/Beach choice today? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he went with the latter now.
And Lucic was very ineffective point wise in the playoffs, like usual.

LolClarkson* 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 04:12 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.