Sure, Why Not? Canucks Sign Matt Pettinger
The hysterical string of injuries the Canucks are juggling have been a boom for the lucky lads in Manitoba. And with injuries now afflicting the recalls (you'd think Pudge would have told Grabner about the dangers of soccer) it may be time to stop being picky and find a warm body (7th paragraph).
As such, please welcome the returning Matt Cooke replacement Matt Pettinger. Pettinger played 20 games for the Canucks during the disastrous 2007-08 campaign, netting six points (4G, 2A) including two game winners and 11 PIMs. Pettinger was lost on waivers to Tampa before the beginning of last season to protect then-Canuck Mike Brown from being poached. With the Lightning he had 15 points in 59 games. When no one came calling this summer, Pettinger decided to accept a PTO with the Moose. And, just like that, he's back in the NHL thanks to Vancouver's inability to go a week without losing five guys.
The TEAM 1040 should have more over the next few hours, but surely Pettinger is a good fit in the bottom six and at the very least ensures AV doesn't need to put Rome or Schneider in as forwards for the coming week. Then again if everyone passed on him this summer that presumably leaves a lot to be desired. At this rate, if he can still play chippy and crash and bang away a goal or two, well he deserves a key to the city.
Welcome Matty! Now watch yer ass.
0 recs |
87 comments
|
Comments
and once all the injured players get back, i’m expecting a time of poor play while viggy is line-juggling again to fit the returning players into lines that work…..
http://canuckpuckbunny.blogspot.com
GO CANUCKS GO!
by missy on Nov 2, 2009 12:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Although they certainly don’t tell the whole story, his +/- numbers are worrying. Ideally, your bottom six guys can play a responsible shutdown or checking role, and Pettinger might be shaky in his own end. That being said, when you’re down so many players, he’s a serviceable NHL forward for cheap.
by Fleet Fox on Nov 2, 2009 1:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Right, he’s serviceable. Right now we can’t ask for much more.
At least it wasn’t Chouinard
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Nov 2, 2009 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, it beats making Raycroft play forward.
by casual on Nov 2, 2009 1:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Shhhhhhh. Don’t give anyone any ideas.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Nov 2, 2009 2:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If I remember right, fans of Cooke seemed to strongly dislike him when he was here last time, but I thought he was ok for an energy guy. Decent speed, anyway.
by headspacej on Nov 2, 2009 2:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
He wasn’t too bad, but it’s like getting Pyatt with worse hands. Not bad and can be plugged in to the third or fourth line, maybe some PK time. But his best days are far behind him so unless he goes on a scoring bender he’ll be back in Manitoba once everyone heals up.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Nov 2, 2009 2:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Seems like a prudent decision. But I vote Ryan Walter laces up again. It’d be so… inspirational.
by Beantown Canuck on Nov 2, 2009 3:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Walter was a fine d-man in his day. Mind you, a can opener move was allowed back then, and he wasn’t exactly shy about using it, either….
by casual on Nov 2, 2009 3:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Uh, he was a centre I believe. Once scored 38 goals in a season too, which was back in 1982… of course, that lofty number was only good enough to tie for 30th in the league for goal scoring back then, which was led by a young upstart named Wayne Gretzky scoring a humble 92 goals. Oh and that same year a crazy club from Vancouver made it all the way to the Cup finals to be trounced by the Islanders.
by Beantown Canuck on Nov 2, 2009 4:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
D’oh, I was thinking of Brian Engblom. I have absolutely no idea why those two players’ memories short-circuited in my brain. What a doof I can be some days.
by casual on Nov 2, 2009 5:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Both played for the Habs? Crap, I always confuse Engblom and John van Boxmeer.
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Nov 2, 2009 5:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Still glad
they declined their 9 game option on Hodgson I wonder?
by yoata on Nov 2, 2009 4:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Would that have had to be nine games at the start of the year? If so, then I don’t see that it would have made any difference, sadly.
...loving life for Christ's glory...
by NebCanuck on Nov 2, 2009 4:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If he’s still hurt, what difference does it make?
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Nov 2, 2009 4:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. See below:
Hodgson a week away
By Jim Jamieson, The ProvinceNovember 1, 2009
It’s expected that Vancouver Canucks prospect Cody Hodgson will be back on skates in a week. Hodgson returned from the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio on Wednesday after a follow-up visit for his back. Hodgson suffered a bulging disc in his lower back during summer training and the ailing back affected him during the preseason. He was examined early last month by Dr. Tony Miniaci at the Cleveland Clinic and was told to stay off skates for a month.
“The message I got from my office is that the doctor is pleased with Cody’s progress,” said Hodgson’s agent, Don Meehan.
Hodgson is working daily with the Brampton Battalion team’s trainer.
Sounds like the coach was right: Hodgson just wasn’t ready to play this year, and we wouldda used up a year of his entry-level for nothing. Now, he can instead get better (and maybe work on his skating a little, cuz even when he’s healthy he could use just a little more speed, I hear), and come back next year rampin’ and rarin’ to go, with Demitra, Wellwood and Johnson all being UFAs.
by casual on Nov 2, 2009 5:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
if he hadn’t been pushed to come back early when he was still hurt, maybe he wouldn’t have been out so long.
Regardless, sounds like he’ll be back before at least some of the currently injured Nuck forwards.
Am I seriously the only one here capable of criticizing Canuck management for anything?
The way you guys make excuses for them it’s like they can do no wrong.
by yoata on Nov 2, 2009 6:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
if he hadn’t been pushed to come back early when he was still hurt, maybe he wouldn’t have been out so long.
You mean by fans like you? IIRC, when the coaches so much as limited his minutes on the ice, you went ballistic about it.
Regardless, sounds like he’ll be back before at least some of the currently injured Nuck forwards.
We’ll see. It’s another week before he even skates, much less plays a game at even the junior level.
The way you guys make excuses for them it’s like they can do no wrong.
What excuse? Hodgson wasn’t ready any more than Demitra or M. Schneider were ready. The team was right about the kid. it’s awfully tough luck on his part to get hurt when he did, but that’s what happened.
How the fcuk could anyone tell if he was ready when he wasn’t even healthy?
All they could determine was that he wasn’t ready, for whatever reason, but that’s all they had to determine in order to send him back.
I think one of the diagnostic techniques for a bulging disk is to compare x-rays (or MRIs or CT scans etc) to see what’s changed; bulging disks are usually something you get when older, tho athletes can get ‘em too. In Cody’s case, what could you compare it to? This was a first-time thing for him and I bet he pushed like the dickens for a chance to make the team, regardless, and may have also not wanted the exact nature of his injury known for all the usual reasons that athletes these days keep tight-lipped about such things.
Yoata, we all liked Hodgson and wanted him to succeed. So did the AV & MG. It just didn’t happen is all.
by casual on Nov 2, 2009 6:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
good post casual
My only comment is that there is some egg on the face of the Canucks medical staff. I do not think that Cody should have cleared to even try to make the team.
by Kelownakid on Nov 2, 2009 7:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, in hindsight it sounds that way, tho I’d sure wanna hear their side of things, too, before I judge them. And I still wonder if Cody himself pushed for the chance: I would, you would, most guys would, and just try to play thru the pain. The poor kid had the worst luck hit him at the worst possible time.
I hope he comes back next year and shoots the lights out. Be interesting: I think Demitra is gone after this year and even if he stays it’s for small money; Plus Wellwood and Johnson are also UFAs next year. That’s three centers, with youngsters Hodgson and Schroeder on the rise. Transition time?
by casual on Nov 2, 2009 7:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wanna hear their side?
That’s all we’ve heard is their side, they publicly skewered the kid and he had the class not to turn it into a war of words.
Of course he pushed himself, but if they had given him the benefit of the doubt he wouldn’t have had to, instead they did the opposite.
The only thing I hope is that Hodgson is a part of this organization a lot longer than either Gillis or AV.
by yoata on Nov 2, 2009 7:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Again
How the fcuk were they right???
They were dead WRONG in their assessment that he was recovered from injury, and they were dead WRONG in calling him out publicly as though he were using it as an excuse, and therefore they were dead WRONG that he wasn’t ready, since how could that even be assessed when he was injured???
And how could they have wanted him to succeed when everything they did was to prevent it right from pushing him to return, to giving him zero real chance to shine when he did, to declining their option to keep him for 9 games despite his great promise in favour of Tanner freaking lucky if his NHL career lasts 40 games Glass.
Like I said, for some the current management can do no wrong, even when it’s as obvious as the darkness of night that they are, and have been many times.
by yoata on Nov 2, 2009 7:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You seriously think this team would be one iota better if Hodgson was on it, based on what he showed in camp? Even with Tavares playing well, the Islanders are still a terrible team.
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Nov 2, 2009 7:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think
even an injured Hodgson would do more than Wellwood, Glass, Hordichuk etc have done, and a healthy Hodgson could be a real difference maker yes.
by yoata on Nov 2, 2009 7:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ok ok
I agree with the jist of what you are saying yoada. But first i do not believe that AV and Gillis where doing anything more than listening to and believing the medical staff. Backs are tricky and I think they got it wrong. Plus I agree I think they should have considered putting him on the IR list (like so many others) and keeping him around. But to be fair I do not think the Canucks medical staff gave AV and Gillis that option.
by Kelownakid on Nov 2, 2009 7:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So
I could see on tv for the occassional shift that he was out there that he wasn’t right, obviously labouring and not enjoying full range of motion, and yet AV and Gillis didn’t think to question the medical staff?
But what they did do was publicly question Hodgson’s integrity because he did have the sense to question their diagnosis. Sorry but those two are far too sure of themselves and their own judgement which has been sorely lacking for the most part since they’ve been in Van.
by yoata on Nov 2, 2009 8:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comparing Hodgson to Glass and Hordichuk is comparing apples to oranges. Better than Wellwood? At some point, yes. Right now, no.
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Nov 2, 2009 8:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
According to AV and Gillis yeah
Sorry but I think for my self, and it doesn’t take much thought to realize Hodgson would be a big improvement over any of them, whether it be apples, oranges or freakin watermelons.
by yoata on Nov 2, 2009 8:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So we’re just a bunch of sheep because we disagree with you. We’re both entitled to our opinions, no matter what we think of each other’s.
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Nov 2, 2009 8:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No
You’re a bunch of sheep because you drink whatever koolaid AV and Gillis are serving, no matter if it smells like lagoon water.
It’s like anything either one does is automatically brilliant, nobody dares question any of it, even after the fact when a lot of what they do has been crap.
by yoata on Nov 2, 2009 8:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fine
My dinner’s here. I don’t agree, but you’re entitled to your opinion. We cool?
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Nov 2, 2009 8:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course
it’s nothing personal, I’d just like to see anybody here take issue with anything Gillis or AV does, but I haven’t yet.
Enjoy your dinner.
by yoata on Nov 2, 2009 8:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They were dead WRONG in their assessment that he was recovered from injury, and they were dead WRONG in calling him out publicly as though he were using it as an excuse,
I can agree that reeked and I hope it doesn’t ruin a future relationship with the kid.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 2, 2009 9:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I liked this conversation better back when we were 7-0 in preseason.
by Beantown Canuck on Nov 2, 2009 9:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
At this point
I think it is well deserved and I’m not sure Gillis and AV deserve to reap the benefit this kid will bring when they do finally give him a real chance.
by yoata on Nov 3, 2009 12:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It was salad, but thanks anyway. :)
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Nov 3, 2009 4:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No…thats not it yoata…its just that you refuse…for some reason…to give them any credit.
vancitydan
by vancitydan on Nov 3, 2009 10:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
BS
I give credit where due and not before.
by yoata on Nov 3, 2009 12:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah right…sure…whatever
vancitydan
by vancitydan on Nov 3, 2009 4:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I kind of made the call on Pettinger back in a Canucks uniform in the post of him joining the Moose.
It’s obviously just to fill the void until the regulars get healthy, and then he’ll be back down with the Moose. Decent signing to get a cheap experienced NHLer in the line-up, these Moose kids were only gonna be band-aids for so long (save for Grabner). His career +/- is obviously not pretty, but keep in mind he played for some weak Capitals/Lightning teams and will likely not be a long-term Canuck.
by cyxj on Nov 3, 2009 12:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Also in the news:
MANITOBA MOOSE-Signed F Olivier Latendresse.
VICTORIA SALMON KINGS-Acquired the rights to D Neil Petruic from Elmira.
by thelastjohnny on Nov 3, 2009 3:05 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Hodgson
He was handled poorly by the organization. He was hurt, is still hurt, and might be ticked at management now. I hope efforts have been made behind the scenes to apologize. It certainly is warranted.
by Jevant on Nov 3, 2009 7:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I agree with that. Though I still disagree with yoata overall.
by Beantown Canuck on Nov 3, 2009 9:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t…they have nothing to apologize for. Jesus…we analyze things to death in Canuck Nation.
Due to his back, or whatever, he wasn’t playing well enough when AV made his comments.
I know a bunch of you have been in a locker room like me…and if that is the worst he here’s about himself…he will lead a charmed life. I can agree the comments should not have been public though…fucking media in this town are pretty relentless though. It sounded to me at the time as if AV was a little exasperated with the questioning and said that to shut people up.
Bottom line, due to injury in part, Cody wasn’t good enough to make the team as an 18 year old, and got sent down.
Why is it warranted Jevant? Because it turned out his back WAS injured? Big fucking deal…I am sure the kid was disappointed and all…but if his character is such that he is going to hold that against the team long term…fuck em…trade him for another highly rated 18 year old.
We don’t need any prima donnas…just guys that will play hard. I am sure from what I have gleaned reading about this guy and listening to him talk to the media, that he will use it as motivation to make the team next year.
Peace
vancitydan
by vancitydan on Nov 3, 2009 10:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Since I’ve already written tons on this (who on this site hasn’t), I will just say that my point would be that he didn’t get a fair shake. This team apparently wants to win now. Spend some money, keep him up here, put him on IR, and burn the first year of his rookie contract if that’s what it comes down to. Better than losing him for the entire year, like they have now done.
He didn’t get a fair, healthy chance to compete for a spot, and I don’t understand why the club didn’t give him that, and then didn’t seem to recognize the injury.
by Jevant on Nov 3, 2009 2:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Here is the thing though. If you burn a year or two of his entry level deal while he is still young you might get him cheaper on his second deal than if you wait. Like maybe you burn a year or two of his entry level deal bouncing him around between here and the AHL and then his second contract is a 4 year deal at 3 a year rather than waiting until he is good and ready and then his second contract becomes a 5 or 6 million deal. Fingers crossed he is good enough to warrant that kind of money.
by Section 312 on Nov 3, 2009 2:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That only helps my point, I think, but yeah, I see what you’re saying. Either way, no reason not to keep him around here if the only consideration is money.
by Jevant on Nov 3, 2009 2:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Remember the Bobby Orr story I mentioned at the time, where Orr went to Coach Cherry and asked, “Mr. Cherry, the next time you’re giving everyone heck, do you think you could give me some too, please?” Hodgson’s camp parallels that, I think.
All players in camp want to be subject to the same “rules,” which include a blunt assessment of their play. Other players in that camp, such as Grabner, were regularly “called out” – i.e. their poor play was matter-of-factly described as such, with the understanding that it had to be better if it were to rise to NHL standards – and so Hodgson had to be called out that way, too.
Had they not called him out:
1. He’d end up being cut anyway even after a lack of calling hm out implied he was doing just fine.
2. He’d have had no idea why he was cut; after all, if he needed to do something better or do something different, why didn’t they tell him?
3. The fans would have no idea why he was cut.
4. He’d be seen by the other players as “teacher’s pet,” a kiss of death to anyone. Soon enough, the fans would see him this way, too.
What were they to do at the time? Tell the world, “Yeah, Cody’s done nothing in camp to justify a position, but he’s hurting, so we’ll keep him anyway and just hope he does better during the year”…?
No one sniped at the kid; they simply told the truth. If Hodgson’s sore back was indeed the difference maker for him, that was horrible, rotten, no-good, very-bad-day luck.
But I’ll leave it at this: in hindsight, what public statements do you think the team should have made at the time, coupled with what final decision, and what do you guys think would have been the pros and the cons of doing so? And would Hodgson, in our 20-20 hindsight world, have ended up anywhere other than where he is now, doing what he’s doing now?
by casual on Nov 3, 2009 9:29 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
You call someone out for being injured???
How was basically accusing him of using it as an excuse “telling the truth”???
See this is what I mean, for some no matter how blatantly obviously wrong they were, some just cannot admit it, it’s like Gillis and AV by their very nature are somehow infallible.
by yoata on Nov 3, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They called him out for his play and said that he’d have to step it up, injury or no, all of which was true. Hodgson was not a proven vet – a la Demitra, for example – for whom the team would wait. He was a raw rookie coming up from junior and had to show that he belonged, which is what they told him.
For interest’s sake, yoata, how about answering my q from two comments above? What would you have said and done differently and how would the result be changed as a result?
by casual on Nov 3, 2009 12:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Again you use the word “true” to describe criticizing a kid for supposedly using injury as an excuse when he had a freaking bulging disc in his back.
You ever have back problems?
I’ve already said what should have been done, he should have been given a real opportunity that he earned, that should have included giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was indeed injured and therefore given time to heal, and the encouragment and confidence that you want a budding star to have, instead of criticism and fear that he obviously got instead.
They should have exercised their 9 game option as long as that might have taken due to injury, and had the brains to know that he should have been automatically above the likes of at the very least Glass and Hordichuk if not others on the depth chart.
by yoata on Nov 3, 2009 5:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is the kind of environment you foster talent in:
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=504639
“Forget about his skill and all the points he’s put on the board, but it’s the way he handles himself,” Rangers coach John Tortorella said of Del Zotto. “I don’t think he’s afraid to make mistakes so it allows him to try to make a difference. That’s pretty unique for a 19-year-old guy playing the toughest position in the game.”
Listen to that positivity and confidence given their young star in the making and compare it to what has been said about Hodgson right through the camp and beyond. You think he doesn’t read this stuff and say “wtf did I do to deserve that shit”?
You think he doesn’t look around at Del Zotto, Duchene, Kane, Benn, and even Tavares and Hedman, all of whom he outperformed most of last season and say “why not me”? Imagine you are 19 and have your guts wrenched like that, the kid deserves better and it’s a shame how he’s been treated by this team.
by yoata on Nov 3, 2009 5:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
BTW, and change of topic, is it just me or does that pic of Pettinger at the top of this post make him look an awful lot like Sidney Crosby?
by casual on Nov 3, 2009 12:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Casual you are so far wrong on this it’s hard to believe. You are saying it is OK for the management to call a guy out for his poor level of play when it turns out he was too injured to even be out on the ice? How does that even scan for you? He clearly was hurt to the point where he should have not even seen the ice in the preseason yet he was forced to go out there by a combination of bad medical advice and his own desire to prove he belonged here. You also say he isn’t a vet so the team wouldn’t wait for him. He has to earn his spot. But he wasn’t even given a chance to earn his spot. If they had waited for him to get healthy, let him practice for a week and then put him into 2 or 3 games then we would have seen if he was ready to play at this level. Seriously, you are saying “he wasn’t ready to play at this level” and basing that in part on what he did on the ice? Cause as I have already mentioned he was too hurt to be out there. So how on Earth can you make a judgment about what he was ready for?
I don’t understand how a top 10 pick, a guy with huge upside and a guy who is a potential elite guy with above average hands isn’t a guy you would wait for on an offensively challenged team? I keep reading this nonsense and I can’t take it anymore. He wasn’t good enough as an 18 year old so he got send down. No he was hurt and shouldn’t have been playing. There are several 18 year olds playing in the NHL right now and Hodgson is just as good as any of them.
by Section 312 on Nov 3, 2009 1:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
He chose to try – and I don’t blame him, I would have done the same thing – and to play thru the injury cuz his window of opportunity was limited. The club let him, and man would there have been a revolt if they hadn’t, esp w/Hodgson himself saying he felt he could give it a go.
So what to do? They couldn’t just wait for him cuz who knew a) if he was ready or b) when he’d be healthy. They didn’t wanna send him back down w/out even a trial. Brampton needs to know the decision; there’s another junior down there who wants to make plans or not depending on whther there’s a roster spot open.
The best they could do was what they did: let him practice – and he was specifically kept non-contact for as long as possible – and then play him in some games and see what he could do and judge him the same as they judged everyone else; by the results.
Think of this episode as a cold, calculated decision tree (unfortunately). Trace down to the end of every path. Nothing ends well, but the best of a bad lot of outcomes is pretty much what they did: Cody got a trial and some valuable experience; the team got an idea as to what kind of a kid he is and what he can do on the ice, how he thinks etc – something of his style of play came thru, regardless, in his play – and they kept a year of entry-level eligibility for him in the NHL that didn’t get wasted on LTIR instead.
Lousy tree, eh? But it was what it was, thru no fault of management’s and no fault of Hodgsons. When you’re cornered by a tiger, there really aren’t many good choices. That’s why I ask people what they would have done differently and how it would have improved the outcome, preferably listing pros and cons side-by-side so we can compare them.
by casual on Nov 3, 2009 1:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
p.s. Note that he’s not even skating yet, to this day, so how could we have waited for him to get healthy for a trial this year? When would that trial have taken place: January? February? March? A junior leaguer who hasn’t played in months jumping into that as his entry-level experience to the NHL? And if he didn’t make, would he even have anywhere to play at all before next year rolls around?
by casual on Nov 3, 2009 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What you think his junior team would not want him back in January? Come on.
A junior player who hasn’t played in months but is healthy has a much better chance to make an impact than Matt Pettinger. Plus Hodgson would have had a better chance to make the team as a healthy player than the chance he had coming into camp hurt. So if they didn’t feel they could wait for him to be healthy they should have sent him down right away and not risked even further serious injury or alienating our best prospect.
If they couldn’t find a team in Junior to take him they could play him the 9 games and send him to the AHL. I mean there were more options than you are willing to admit here casual.
by Section 312 on Nov 3, 2009 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
AHL isn’t an option. He is underage.
Wish to hell it was doable. Would have been perfect.
by kesrows on Nov 3, 2009 2:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You guys need to learn to read. I was saying that if you wanted to, and were OK with taking the year off his entry level deal, you could have tried him out for the 9 games and then sent him to the AHL. Then bring him back up when his play, or injuries, dictated.
by Section 312 on Nov 3, 2009 2:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My reading is fine. Cody cannot, by rule, play in the AHL this year, period. Not now and not after 9 games in the NHL, either; he is too young. Lousy rule doesn’t fit this situation, but there it is. For Hodgson it’s the NHL or it’s junior.
by casual on Nov 3, 2009 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s not true. If he plays past the 9 games or whatever it is and you send him down he goes to the AHL for conditioning stints if he isn’t playing the NHL. You just can’t keep him in the AHL full time.
by Section 312 on Nov 3, 2009 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He is not allowed to touch the hallowed ice of our beloved Moose. Period.
Like I said. Wish he was.
by kesrows on Nov 3, 2009 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A player past the 9 games can go to the AHL for conditioning assignments. If you don’t believe me go read it. It’s a pretty easy rule to dig up.
by Section 312 on Nov 3, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not if he’s underage. Plus conditioning stints are a max of 6 games I think.
by casual on Nov 3, 2009 2:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
EVEN IF HE IS 18 HE CAN GO TO THE AHL FOR A CONDITIONING STINT ONCE HE IS PAST THE 9 GAME MARK.
I had to yell to get through to you two. Go read the rules as I have done more than once.
by Section 312 on Nov 3, 2009 2:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But it’s still only for a max of 6 games. Shhhh. And when he returns, as he must, we’re back to playing the waiver game again, each time with a new player until we’re out of players good enough to be claimed.
by casual on Nov 3, 2009 2:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He makes so little though so sit him in the press box. Let him practice with the big boys. Play him from time to time. Then send him down for more conditioning. Better that than playing junior where he is learning nothing and not getting any better.
by Section 312 on Nov 3, 2009 3:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You’d take up a roster spot, put the team thru constant waiver hassles w/whomever got moved to make room, waste a year of entry-level, and all for a player who can’t even skate again yet and may or may not be ready for the NHL when healthy.
Look over the salary cap stats sometime. Successful teams have young, talented entry-level guys contributing cheap. Like Chicago, for example. Entry-level is not to be frittered away.
And what would your plan do to Cody? No set linemates, different teams all the time, up and down, mostly not playing, not really one of the boys in either league cuz he’d be getting special treatment like a pet … if this is an example of an alternative to what Gillis actually did, I’ll go w/the Gillis approach for now.
If you’re trying to “think outside the box” – to use the unintentionally ironic cliche – think about maybe sending him to Europe instead where he could play against grown men and work on his biggest weakness: his skating.
He could use just a little more speed, even when healthy, esp in the first 3 steps, or so I’ve heard. I saw him in the world juniors, but it’s tough to gauge from that how fast he’d be in the NHL where the competition is so much tougher and faster. He looked pretty pedestrian in his tryout, but maybe he’s got a little more zing when healthier.
He mentioned at one pt that one leg didn;t seem to have the ol’ oomph he wanted and that that was why he was slower. Maybe, but it’s pretty easy to test one leg against the other ,standalone in the gym.
Perhaps the team did that and concluded that it wasn’t the injury, it was that he needed to work on his mechanics?
Point is, we don’t know. You’re looking to take on an awful lot of hurt with your plan for the sake of an injured junior player who showed visible weaknesses when playing at the pro level.
by casual on Nov 3, 2009 3:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So do you think Brampton has better coaches or the Canucks. If you think he needs to work on his skating keep him here. Plus that’s more of an off season thing anyway and obviously his injury precluded him from working on his skating this past off season. I don’t think the roster spot is that big of a deal. If you don’t have cap issues you can keep 2 or 3 guys in the press box and rotate them.
My point is that you are saying you don’t think Hodgson would have been able to contribute. Isn’t it? I think he would have been able to contribute more than Bolduc and Pettinger.
And I have looked at salary cap stats. But I don’t care about 3 or even 2 years from now if Hodgson is contributing while making comparatively little. I care about our best chance to compete this year. And making him the best player he can be as soon as possible. I don’t think the Canucks did either of those things.
The other point I would make is this. Are you saying you don’t think that Hodgson would have been able to contribute as an 18 year old if he had been healthy for training camp? Because Colorado has an 18 year old second round pick contributing right now to a team that is in first place. So that would have to mean that Hodgson isn’t as good of a prospect as we think he is.
by Section 312 on Nov 3, 2009 3:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Section…his wage is twice the minimum…so its not “so little”…with bonuses, Cody was way over that Mil. too….
better to have him mature in junior, get over the back injury with no pressure, and get him here healthy next year.
vancitydan
by vancitydan on Nov 3, 2009 4:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How much maturing is he going to do? I am sceptical that he will do any.
by Section 312 on Nov 3, 2009 4:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And therein
perhaps lies the reason they didn’t want to give him a real shot this year, cap uncertainty that Gillis didn’t want to deal with.
by yoata on Nov 3, 2009 5:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely
In fact, by everything up to now, he’s better than most of them.
But not according to AV and Gillisgan.
by yoata on Nov 3, 2009 5:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He can’t go to the AHL cuz he’s too young, I believe. If he could, he’d be assigned to the Moose already.
And can a junior team even “loan” a player, mid-season, to an NHL squad and then take him back 9 games later? I’ve never seen that done, at least not that I can recall, so I really don’t know.
Plus you’d likely have get another player to clear waivers going down and then perhaps again on the way back up in order to make room for Cody and his mid-season tryout. Hansen? Raymond? Which player, good enough to stick to mid-season, is nonetheless wholly expendable?
But I digress: what specifically would you have done in place of that which was done?
by casual on Nov 3, 2009 1:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
No but if they had played him in those 9 games can they not then send him to the AHL? They would just sacrifice a year of his rookie contract.
I wasn’t saying he would play junior to get healthy and come back. I was saying you keep him here until healthy then try him and if he isn’t good enough you send him back to junior. They would welcome him with open arms.
I would have kept him here, got him healthy and then played him. You can ease in, or even try out, young players and still win. The Red Wings do it. If he couldn’t handle the NHL once healthy send him back to Brampton. They would have welcomed him back. Or you could have waited until he was healthy let him practice for a couple weeks and then released him to the World Juniors to get him back in shape and then tried him out and if he still couldn’t handle it you could send him back to Brampton.
by Section 312 on Nov 3, 2009 2:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t wanna hit this one too hard because I think this issue has seen more action than a pornstar’s vagina, but…..
1. Canucks screwed the pooch a bit in the handling of Hodgson, but nothing that can’t or won’t be repaired.
2. I’d put money on Hodgson downplaying the injury as much as possible to try to squeak out that roster spot that everyone had expectations on him making. If not for the emergence of Shirokov in preseason he probably still would have held it.
3. The whole thing is essentially moot now because even if he was healthy tomorrow, his conditioning and timing are probably way off from where he needs to be to compete at this level. Usually takes about 5 to 7 games for regular roster players to get their game to the normal level. I don’t think parachuting him in now would help him or the team.
That’s my take on it. Hopefully I will have to speak no more of it.
by kesrows on Nov 3, 2009 2:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
That’s my take on it. Hopefully I will have to speak no more of it.
Wise man. I think I’ll join you now; same reason: I said my piece.
by casual on Nov 3, 2009 2:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by























