Nucks Misconduct: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
New Blog: Cottagers Confidential for Fulham FC Fans!

Did The Canucks "Shaft" Cody Hodgson?

I'm serious, I truly am sick of all the Hodgson talk on this site, to be honest, so allow me to post this here and ask you once again: Did the Canucks give Cody Hodgson a fair shot at making the team this season?

Mike posted a piece about this topic back on September 29th after Hodgson was sent back to Brampton, failing to secure a spot on the Canucks' roster and he included a poll that asked:

Do you agree that cutting Cody Hodgson was the right move?

59% of readers said it was the right move.

30% said he was injured, but was ready for the bigs

9% said that they were surprised that the "G" in Cody's name was silent. I still laugh at that.

I will admit that I was one of the people who said and voted that Hodgson was NOT ready for the NHL. He sure as hell didn't look like he was ready. He had 2 points in 6 preseason games and looked like he was a step behind nearly everybody. However, what followed was a bunch of finger-pointing from Canucks' management and second-guessing from Cody Hodgson and his agent about his lingering back issues.

Mike Gillis said this about Hodgson:

"We’re going to do what’s in his best interest," Gillis said. "He’s going to let us know when he’s ready to play in this league and it’s up to him to be prepared and be able to compete at this level.

"There’s been a lot of players that have played really well in junior hockey that come into this league and they’re not prepared for it. And they tend to really suffer later on."

Alain Vigneault was more harsh with his wording:

"He just wasn’t ready," said Alain Vigneault. "We really believe this young man has a tremendous amount of upside but, at the end of the day, he didn’t show any signs that he was ready to play at this level. After analyzing it and talking about it, we felt the best thing for him was to go back to junior and his team." And in regards to Hodgson seeking another opinion on his back: "As far as I know, he has already had two opinions. He had an opinion back home from a specialist who gave the exact same report that our back specialist gave him. If he wants to get a third opinion, that's fine. I think Cody is a very young man who hasn't had a lot of disappointments throughout his life. He's probably having a tough time, personally, dealing with this one and trying to find a reason why it happened. We've all had times where we've encountered disappointment and tried to roll the (blame) in a different direction. We've all been through those things. Cody will learn from this."

Hodgson reportedly told Mike Gillis that he was "ready to play". He was cleared by Canucks doctors to do so. But when he was told he was not going to make the Canucks team, Hodgson went East to seek another opinion from a doc in Cleveland on his back. He was diagnosed with nerve damage, and has yet to play for his OHL team - the Battalions.

So what in the blue hell is going on here? Who's bullshitting who?

-Did Hodgson lie about being ready to play so that he could at least play some preseason games, and by god, prove that he belonged in the NHL?

-Were the Canucks' doctors wrong and the dudes at the Cleveland clinic correct about the injury?

-Should the Canucks have at least given Hodgson a 9-game try-out during the regular season after his back was healed and then made a decision? What or who would that have hurt?

-Do you sometimes wake up at night in a cold sweat wondering why the hell Kyle Wellwood is centering the 3rd line and Hodgson potentially isn't? Would we have been better off with Hodgson in the lineup over Wellwood in hindsight?

-Will Hodgson's return to the OHL impede his progress?

I'm leaning towards the Hodgson camp on this one, but how can I really be sure?

Please discuss this here, because like I said at the beginning of the post: I'm sick and tired of all the "what-if" talk. The answer to the Hodgson questions are not simple ones, whether you like it or not.

Poll
Did the Canucks give Cody Hodgson a fair chance to make the team?
Yes they did, and Hodgson proved he was not NHL-ready
50 votes
No they did not. This whole scenario reeks of horse shit
33 votes
I don't care. He'll get his chance next year
90 votes

173 votes | Poll has closed

3 recs  |  Comment 105 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Seriously this is a simple case of circumstances shafted him if anything. The kid had a shot we all dream of…of course he’s gonna say he thinks he’s ready, even if he has a bit of pain still. Pro’s play thru the pain. He wanted to be a pro. We all woulda done the exact same at 19 or whatever age he is. And frankly, back injuries aren’t like a knee or other joint where it’s easy to find and fix a problem. So yeah, it’s very concievable that two or three or more doctors would misdiagnose the problem…especially if he’s trying to minimize it’s appearance to get the tryout for the big show. It’s unfortunate, and yes he did get the shaft, but not by the Canucks or Gillis or AV, regardless of how much u want to blame one or all of them (yoata). And he didn’t shaft himself either…it was just one of those lousy things that happens sometimes. He’ll be back next year to show us all what we expect to see, and it’ll all be forgotten by November.

by GAHHHHH! on Nov 26, 2009 12:02 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Circumstances?

Caused him to be pressured enough to return from injury too soon just to give himself a shot that obviously was being closed on him due to no fault of his own?

Circumstances caused the team to ignore the obvious fact that he was injured and therefore could not even be properly assessed as to whether he was ready or not?

Circumstances caused the team to decline their no obligation option to keep him around for 9 games so that he could be properly assessed once healthy?

Circumstances caused both Gillis and AV to publicly question his integrity and honesty as a player just because he was injured?

Sean asks some great questions above, try answering them honestly, then looking at the answers and concluding that it was just “circumstances”…

by yoata on Nov 26, 2009 4:25 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

My thoughts
-Did Hodgson lie about being ready to play so that he could at least play some preseason games, and by god, prove that he belonged in the NHL?

Maybe. But what kid wouldn’t say he was ready to play? It’s like when my boss asks if I can take on more work. I almost always say “yes”, because nobody wants to say no. And Hodgson isn’t a doctor – that should be up to management/training staff/doctors.

-Were the Canucks’ doctors wrong and the dudes at the Cleveland clinic correct about the injury?

It certainly looks that way. The fact he hasn’t played yet this year would suggest so.

-Should the Canucks have at least given Hodgson a 9-game try-out during the regular season after his back was healed and then made a decision? What or who would that have hurt?

He could be sitting on LTIR right now, healing up, costing nothing but his salary and a year on his contract, and we’d have the option of replacing one of our non-producing forwards with him right now. It would have hurt nobody except the owner’s pockets, which hasn’t seemed to be a concern.

-Do you sometimes wake up at night in a cold sweat wondering why the hell Kyle Wellwood is centering the 3rd line and Hodgson potentially isn’t? Would we have been better off with Hodgson in the lineup over Wellwood in hindsight?

Yes. At least, a healthy Hodgson. Which we now have no option for the remainder of this year.

-Will Hodgson’s return to the OHL impede his progress?

Probably not. But there was nothing that could be gained by sending him there.

In my opinion, management screwed up big time in this case. It would look good on everyone involved if they would be man enough to admit they were wrong. AV’s comments especially look ridiculous now.

by Jevant on Nov 26, 2009 8:03 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Agreed

on all counts except I think it does imped his progress, and especially his confidence, and certainly comfort with the organization.

Also I’m sure Gillis basically echoed those sentiments by AV, but I’ll have to find the quotes.

by yoata on Nov 26, 2009 8:29 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Bang on
“In my opinion, he is. He’s proven everything he can at the Canadian hockey league level”

That was a quote from Dave Gagner the head of Canucks player development. If he thinks Cody was ready for the NHL then why don’t some Canucks fans? Do they know more about hockey player development than Gagner? If he doesn’t think Hodgson is going to get anything from going back to junior, then why do some Canucks fans think he will improve?

by Section 312 on Nov 26, 2009 11:55 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Or Stan Butler for that matter

who was genuinely shocked to see him sent back.

You think maybe Stan has some experience assessing junior players ready to make the jump?

by yoata on Nov 26, 2009 12:55 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

especially his confidence, and certainly comfort with the organization.

Agreed. Dave Gagner and Stan Butler’s comments also are extremely relevant.

by Jevant on Nov 26, 2009 1:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Without getting into the debate, I want to point out that there has been NO inkling of any lack of “comfort” with the Canucks because he was sent back as an 18 year old.

If he was going to whine about that, his first set back in his hockey life, well…than his supposed great “character” should be questioned then.

The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:

We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"

by vancitydan on Nov 26, 2009 6:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No one is talking about him having a lack of comfort with the Nucks for getting sent back as an 18 year old. We are concerned he is uncomfortable with an organization that let him play hurt and then criticized that play.

by Section 312 on Nov 26, 2009 6:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I didn't

have a problem with him being sent back last year either, he was 18 and hadn’t dominated junior the way he did last year, he took a huge step forward from the year before where he just barely missed making the team, and basically got cast aside out of pure ignorance, that’s where the problem lies.

by yoata on Nov 26, 2009 7:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

While we might disagree on whether or not it was “pure ignorance” or just “plain ignorance” or just “stupidity”, the difference between Hodgson at 18 and Hodgson at 19 was MASSIVE.

by Jevant on Nov 27, 2009 12:31 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I will never be able to understand why the fact he was hurt doesn’t seem to matter to you people when you assess his preseason. Mystifying at best.

I guess if Luongo hurts his back real bad tomorrow and lets in 10 goals we will have to cut him.

by Section 312 on Nov 27, 2009 2:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Agree completely

although my take on Jevant’s post was that he was saying Hodgson was massively improved in the last year?

Certainly your sentiments are very accurate with regard to others here though who just keep parroting that “he wasn’t ready” as if any thought of his serious injury is completely irrelevant.

by yoata on Nov 27, 2009 6:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Correct, Yoata

Thanks for that clarification.

by Jevant on Nov 30, 2009 7:13 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ummm…if you read my posts you’ll know that I certainly feel Hodgson wasn’t given a full healthy chance at all. I was referring to the improvement Hodgson made over his last year of junior, and feel he should be on the Canucks now (although perhaps on the LTIR).

by Jevant on Nov 30, 2009 7:13 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

My bad. I thought you were comparing his camp from this year to the one before, hence why I thought you were on the wrong side!!

by Section 312 on Nov 30, 2009 1:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You may never get the definitive answer you want, Sean, cuz most likely no one is b.s.’ing anyone else.

CH had a bad camp and now truly believes he has a bad back.

… Cuz it’s true?

… Cuz he needs to believe it (which could potentially be a healthy attitude if it salvages his confidence)?

…Is the back OK (2 out of 3 docs agree)?

… Or was it just that tricky a diagnosis?

… Are the diagnoses themselves cut and dried or is medicine still as much an art as a science?

… Something else that we don’t even know about yet?

… A little of everything?

The same guys on this board most strongly saying CH should not have been playing in camp are the ones who screamed the loudest at the time that he should have been playing more. O tempora! O mores!

Any serious injury at the time, real or imagined, just wasn’t apparent to anyone watching, not to CH nor to his most ardent defenders, or they wouldn’t have been demanding additional ice time for him. Those demands are archived on this very board.

Yet, in the face of CH’s own statements made during camp as well as the professional medical opinions given, it is now, in classic 20/20 hindsight, supposed to have been crystal clear to the team? And that constitutes shafting? Where “success” would have constituted forbidding CH, against his own wishes and the advice of the docs, from trying out for the team at all? Truly, the loonies wanna take over the asylum.

My own suspicions are twofold:

1) he started w/a sore back, it got better, and he had a bad camp anyway, and needing a reason – so he could do something about it, a good instinct to start with – the best reason he could see was that it had to be entirely due to an injury. I suspect if the back contributed at all, it was only partially, but we will never know.

2) his critics better hope no one ever holds them to the standards they are holding the team, nor that others damn them on ambiguous evidence as readily as they do others. They would not last long.

Anyway, I’ve said my piece, same as I’ve said it before. I thought I’d add it one time to this thread but won’t be revisiting the matter. Others can take their shots at me here all they want; last word is theirs.

The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.

by casual on Nov 27, 2009 7:05 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Any serious injury at the time, real or imagined, just wasn’t apparent to anyone watching, not to CH nor to his most ardent defenders,


Wrong
, I said repeatedly at the time that he looked off, struggling, either not in game shape or not healed or both, and also that he seemed to lack confidence, needed encouragement (which clearly this organization were saving up for the likes Wellwoulda) all archived on this very board.


won’t be revisiting the matter.

Heard that before somewhere…

What constitutes shafting has been made very clear to you all over this board and in this very thread. They did not give Hodgson a real chance, a chance to heal, a chance to show his stuff once he did, a chance that was all theirs to give without obligation, a chance they declined and then used to publicly disparage the integrity of the best prospect this franchise has had in a long time.

But you know better than the Cleveland clinic of course… You and AV and Gillisgan, the three stooges.

Fact is you cannot bring yourself to do anything but parrot those two, you clearly have a thirst for their bs that cannot be quenched and therefore are incapable of independent thought with regard to anything they have to say. You have proven as much over and over again.

by yoata on Nov 27, 2009 7:33 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Looking back on it all, there seemed to be some pressure coming from the Canucks (namely AV and MG) to pooh pooh the injury to the point where their very doctors misdiagnosed the injury (the above proven in Cleveland) due to this pressure, and CH himself being pressured into minimizing what his body must have felt to be a serious condition. Not to mention the cruel words by both AV and MG. I know I would be pissed off at Canuck management if I were a member of the Hodgson family. Hopefully all will be forgiven when, during the course of his present contract, Cody becomes an important cog in a successful Canuck team.

by Bobby Canuck on Dec 13, 2009 4:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hodgson

Looks like he’s behind in his conditioning and timing, but also like he is playing with very little confidence, thinking too much instead of moving his feet and letting his very good hockey instincts take over. Has the ability, but needs a pep talk.

by yoata on Sep 23, 2009 8:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

…He’s not a checker/energy guy/banger/crasher, he’s a projected top line player, how are you supposed to really asses that ability with 4th line minutes…

by yoata on Sep 28, 2009 7:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.

by casual on Nov 27, 2009 7:54 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

casual, you put a guy in the lineup that tells us fans that he is healthy and ready to go. I am not a doctor nor was I privy to the diagnosis of Hodgon’s injuries, or lack there of, so what does my calling for him to get more ice time have to do with anything? Since he was playing we all assumed he was healthy. He wasn’t. Nor I have adjusted my opinion accordingly. To bad you don’t have the mental flexability to do the same.

by Section 312 on Nov 28, 2009 1:03 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh and before you try to spin my statement I meant “lack there of” in terms of the lack of a proper diagnosis and not in regards to your ridiculous question regarding if Hodgson is actually hurt. If his back wasn’t really hurt he would be destroying junior right not and not getting any better. If you honestly think Hodgson is not really hurt and that the back pain is all psychosematic pain then we need to trade this kid ASAP. If he is that mentally fragile we will need him to score empty netters to try and build his confidence.

by Section 312 on Nov 28, 2009 1:08 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I said repeatedly at the time that he looked off, struggling, either not in game shape or not healed or both, and also that he seemed to lack confidence, needed encouragement

=

Hodgson

Looks like he’s behind in his conditioning and timing, but also like he is playing with very little confidence, thinking too much instead of moving his feet and letting his very good hockey instincts take over. Has the ability, but needs a pep talk.

by yoata on Sep 23, 2009 8:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Or are you really that thick?

by yoata on Nov 27, 2009 8:13 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

You forgot

Way to go Gillisgan

Publicly call out the 19 y/o kid that is the best hope for this team’s future.

The statement of "fact" is that he has been injured and is weeks behind the rest of the players in this camp as far as conditioning and timing, not to mention that he is playing with virtually all of these guys for the first time, and is obviously still not even 100% healed.

Gillisgan is looking for an excuse to send him back, save a year of his contract and make room on the roster, but imo this will not help Hodgson’s development.

by yoata on Sep 25, 2009 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by yoata on Nov 27, 2009 8:19 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

but then

it was the one right in between the two you just posted so I guess you just missed it by mistake…

SPPINERBOY!

by yoata on Nov 27, 2009 8:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Somebody else should recommend this post so that it stays at the top of the fan post section. I need 2 more of you to do so. Cool?

by Sean Zandberg on Nov 27, 2009 9:51 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

These questions I'm sure

will draw the ire of many, but please just think about it.

What will it cost to re-sign Kesler if he keeps playing the way he is, and can the Nucks afford him? And if they do re-sign him long term for big bucks, what does that imply for the future of the young centre prospects in the organization?

by yoata on Nov 28, 2009 1:19 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

they’ll either get moved to the wing or traded I guess. Or Kesler plays wing. He can do that.

I’m sure the team will make room for him. Just curious if he takes a bit of a discount or not.

by Sean Zandberg on Nov 28, 2009 1:59 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So what will it take to re-sign him?

by yoata on Nov 28, 2009 8:10 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Do you think he’s going to get 80 points? I’ll guess 70-75 at the most. In that case I’ll guess he settles for about $5-5.5 million on a long term Sedin-type deal.
Luongo’s new contract kicks in next year so we save about $1 million right off the hop. From there, we’ll save $$$ by letting Schneider go, maybe Mitchell and his $3.5 million, and the real biggy is, and I really hope, that Demitra LEAVES.
Agree?

by Sean Zandberg on Nov 28, 2009 1:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That sounds perfect because then we will have to play some young guys to save on the cap. Kesler could force the Nucks to actually play some of their young talent. Uh oh.

by Section 312 on Nov 28, 2009 2:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It’s always just a matter of time before that happens.

by Sean Zandberg on Nov 28, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yep

sounds about right, although some other guys might be wanting big raises the next year.

So assuming Hank and Kes are 1&2 longterm, where do Hodg and possibly Schroeder fit in?

by yoata on Nov 28, 2009 2:48 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think they would have to fit as wingers. Shirokov, Hodgson, Grabner and Hodgson would then be vying for the 3 wing spots left on the top two lines since Daniel obviously gets one. then Hansen and Burrows are part of a very good third line. I think we need to move two of our 3.5-4 million a year D men and get back a 5-6 a year guy who eats huge minutes and is a stud. Depth can be provided cheaply with Oberg and Sauve.

by Section 312 on Nov 28, 2009 2:56 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think we need to move two of our 3.5-4 million a year D men

You bet.

by Sean Zandberg on Nov 28, 2009 3:48 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe

Orrhoff can be that guy. Also think Edler has a chance, he’s regressed to start this season but I think he has all the tools.

by yoata on Nov 28, 2009 4:07 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah and those two can be locked up or are locked up for long term. But if Salo and Mitchell go away and a Webber, Doughty or Keith, type came in (obviously none of those guys are likely to be moved but that type of player) then you could have Oberg, Sauve, Blasthoff, Edler, a minutes eating Stud and then some other young 6th D man and have a very good D. I would rather have 1 stud, 3 Edler, Errhoff, Bieksa types, 1 emerging youngster and one or two rookies than six 3-4 million a year D men. That way you have more money to pay your forwards. Your 3rd D pair should only be playing 8-10 minutes a game.

by Section 312 on Nov 28, 2009 4:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Oberg and Sauve

have a lot to prove before I slot them in the top 5 on any team, lots of depth on D, too much, especially considering the holes up front, be interesting to see what Gillisgan does with it before the deadline.

by yoata on Nov 28, 2009 4:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well for the future of this team I would rather see Salo, Mitchell, SOB and Schnieder leaving town, most likely this offseason rather than during the season, than trading away Sauve or Oberg for help up front.

by Section 312 on Nov 28, 2009 4:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think those two

are really in the equation right now, Dmen, aside from rare exceptions aren’t impact players until they are 4-5 years past their draft. We have a glut of dmen already in the NHL, 1 or two of which could easily be moved, but I sure wouldn’t balk out of hand at seeing one of those prospects included in a deal that brought a significant piece to this team.

by yoata on Nov 28, 2009 4:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well Salo, Mitchell, Schnieder and probably Bieksa won’t be on this team in 2 years so we should probably have the players in place to replace them.

by Section 312 on Nov 28, 2009 5:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How can you say that

with any certainty?

Good a chance as any that Mitchell and Bieksa will at least.

by yoata on Nov 28, 2009 5:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Bieksa has a contract that can and will most likely need to be moved to get anyone of value back this year up front. Due to cap restrictions and the fact he doesn’t have a NTC he is moveable and if we need to add a forward to the mix Bieksa goes. Mitchell is too old and slow to continue more than another year or two on this team.

by Section 312 on Nov 28, 2009 6:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Could have said

both those things about Ohlund last year but Gillis declined to get anything for him when he could.

Regardless of how much sense you think it makes (personally only 1 of Bieksa, Mitchell, Salo) are expendable imo, does not make it a foregone conclusion.

by yoata on Nov 28, 2009 7:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Didn’t Ohlund have a no movement clause?

by Section 312 on Nov 28, 2009 10:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Don't

Mitchell and Salo?

by yoata on Nov 29, 2009 8:24 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I am talking about them being gone in the next couple years. Not necessarily because they were traded. Injuries, retirement, contracts expiring etc etc.

by Section 312 on Nov 29, 2009 10:17 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Bieksa

is 28, Mitchell 32, lots of good years left in both, I mean I’m not opposed to an upgrade of one or both, but until there’s something real to go on, sounds more like wishful thinking than a plan, to me at least.

by yoata on Nov 29, 2009 10:47 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well I am not the GM so I can’t make any plans. All I have is wishful thinking. Plus I have already said I hope Bieksa sticks around but don’t think he will. So that’s not wishful thinking. I think you have to look at the age and relative lack of speed of our top D men and hope that changes sooner rather than later.

And just because Mitchell plays big minutes doesn’t mean he can compete every night with the other teams top lines. It just means we have no one else to do it.

by Section 312 on Nov 29, 2009 7:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Which

should give some credit to his ability, he is the only shutdown dman we have and he’s pretty good at it most nights. Those types are getting harder to find, especially ones that can play big minutes. I hope Edler and Ehroff become steady enough to be the top dmen on the team, but they have some work to do to be as reliable defensively as Mitchell is.

by yoata on Nov 29, 2009 9:43 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

should give some credit to his ability, he is the only shutdown dman we have and he’s pretty good at it most nights.

Me and my Mitchell jersey agree 100%!

by Sean Zandberg on Nov 30, 2009 11:15 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I recognize he does a good job most nights. Just think his lack of speed and increasing age combined with the way the NHL is getting younger and faster all the time mean his days are numbered as a top pair shut down guy.

by Section 312 on Nov 30, 2009 1:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Only

if someone can replace him…

by yoata on Nov 30, 2009 3:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well if he can’t do the job anymore you have to let him go. Even if there isn’t someone around to replace him immediately. You can’t keep a guy around to do a job cause he used to be able to do it. Hopefully it won’t come to that but it seems to me the way the game is going he is only going to get worse as he gets older.

by Section 312 on Nov 30, 2009 3:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

He will, but did you see his job on Thornton last night? He did a great job.

by Sean Zandberg on Nov 30, 2009 3:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Thornton is the exact opposite of the type of player I am talking about Mitchell a) struggling against and b) that is coming into the league more and more these days.

He is perfect for guys like Joe and Iginla. But Kane and Toews make him look like a Midget player. More of those guys in the league every year and Mitchell is getting slower every year.

by Section 312 on Nov 30, 2009 3:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You're

talking like that’s a foregone conclusion. I’m not saying it isn’t possible, or even inevitable… eventually… but that it is imminent is pure conjecture.

by yoata on Nov 30, 2009 5:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Dude, imminent? I have repeatedly said during this thread that I am talking in the next 2 or maybe 3 years. There is nothing imminent about that. I was talking about planning for the future without guys like Mitchell and Salo.

And since I am not now nor have I ever been the GM of the Canucks pretty much everything I say on here regarding planning for the future of this franchise is conjecture, heresay and wishful thinking.

by Section 312 on Nov 30, 2009 9:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You said"
Well Salo, Mitchell, Schnieder and probably Bieksa won’t be on this team in 2 years so we should probably have the players in place to replace them.

Mitchell is too old and slow to continue more than another year or two on this team.

Sounds pretty certain in your eyes, all I’m saying is I don’t agree that it is and that even if it were, to just assume that a couple of completely unproven kids are going to be able to step in and replace the top two defensemen on the team within the next year or two (or ever for that matter) is more than a bit of wishful thinking. Again, not that it’s impossible, but to me it’s as likely as them never playing a single NHL game, impossible to say at this point, either of those things really.

by yoata on Nov 30, 2009 9:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Sauve is one of the top 2 or 3 D men in the QMJHL and will be playing for Canada in the WJC. These days a resume like that almost always translates into a decent NHL career. How does the word “probably” make anything seem certain in my eyes. I based that on age, contract length and ability to move a guy to bring in a forward. I even said earlier that I hope I am wrong. In two years Mitchell will be how old? 34? Still a top pair shut down guy? I hope so. But I doubt it. I already think he is overpaid I can’t imagine that changing in two years time unless he takes a pay cut.

by Section 312 on Nov 30, 2009 9:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You said

probably about Bieksa, the rest you made seem a certainty, along with pencilling in two kids in the top 5.

Again, not impossible, but then not impossible that Schroeder will be the number one centre in 2-3 years either, but I’m going to need a bit more than “not impossible” before I start planning on it.

by yoata on Nov 30, 2009 9:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You honestly think Salo and Schnieder will be on this team in two years?

My whole point originally was that I would rather see a minutes eating stud, and Mitchell doesn’t fit this bill, as our number 1 guy. A Doughty, Keith, Webber type guy and Bieksa, Edler and Ehrhoff as my top 4 with 2 youngsters/rookies as my 3rd pair. You don’t need 6 3-4 million a year guys on your D. It is a waste of money. your top two pairs should be playing close to 50 minutes combined. The third pair shouldn’t cost more than a couple million combined.

And to have a set up like that Salo, Schnieder and Mitchell would have to go.

And don’t ask me where the stud is coming from. That’s just how I would like to see the team set up.

by Section 312 on Nov 30, 2009 9:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Great

I’d like to see a Datsyuk type #1 centre, a 50 goal man on his wing and Martin Brodeur in net to go along with your stud dman.

by yoata on Nov 30, 2009 9:56 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

We have Hank, Danny and Luongo already.

Dude you seriously have a problem don’t you? All I am talking about is the way I would like to see our teams D crops set up in the future. Rather than spreading out a bunch of money over 6 guys I would rather focus on a top 4 and then let younger guys play on the bottom pair. Ideally with a big time number 1 D man to replace Mitchell. What is so perposterous about that? I mean what do you want me to say? I want to keep the roster the exact same for the 15 years? Since I am just a guy on his computer all I can talk about is how I would like to see the team shape up in 2-3 years time. If you don’t like it debate me on how you would set up a D corps in the salary cap era.

by Section 312 on Nov 30, 2009 10:07 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Plus I never said this is what I think WILL happen. I believe I said this is what I want to see happen. So if you want to debate about the differences between what you think should happen and what I think should happen I will be happy to do that. I don’t see much point in debating what each of us thinks will happen since that would be just guessing.

by Section 312 on Nov 30, 2009 10:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think Mitchell, Salo and probably Bieksa will be gone in 2-3 years. I did say that. But other than that I am talking about what I think should happen.

by Section 312 on Nov 30, 2009 10:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Was

a friendly jab, relax.

The day Hank Dank and Lu = those three guys I mentioned I’ll check off my wish list, I hope you are not serious.

I already told you I don’t think you make plans based on hopes, you have to play the cards that are dealt you.

I’m not that interested in fantasizing, find it pointless, to me, offer some real moves that could be made if you really want to talk about making changes to the core.

by yoata on Nov 30, 2009 10:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

OK then I guess we are done since you don’t want to talk about what I am talking about which is how I would like to see our D set up in the future. Like 1 stud, 3 Ehrhoff or Edler types and a couple youngsters. I think that is the best way to set up a D in the salary cap era. That is what I was pointing out and if you want to debate that we can. I am not making any plans just saying this is how I would like to see the D set up in the future. Rather than 6 3-4 million a year guysm regardless of who they are, I would rather see 3-3 million guys, a 6 million guys and a couple of youngsters. Ideally that would mean some guys leaving. Salo and Schneider won’t be around in a couple years IMHO based on age, and salary and injury history. I am not sure Mitchell is good enough to be the top guy on a Cup winner plus his age and salary mean he will become more and more of a burden so I would like to see him gone.

Concrete moves? I would love to see us go after Robidas if he hits free agency. If he keeps playing the way he did the last half of last year and the start of this year? Could be a star in the making. Plus I think Webber is realistic. They might want to cash in on him before he gets into that 5-6 million a year range and since they have a tonne of good young D men like Suter and Bogosian maybe they would take a Shirokov, Cory Schnieder and a pick type deal for Webber to come home? Webber, Robidas, Edler, Ehrhoff as your top 4. That’s is, and again hopefully not, we move Bieksa this year for help up front since I do think he is the easiest to move of our D now.

by Section 312 on Nov 30, 2009 10:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Sorry not Bogosian. I always confuse Atlanta and Nashville for some reason. But they do have Franson, Ellis and Blum. And if Ellis and Rinne aren’t the answer they might want a goalie.

by Section 312 on Nov 30, 2009 10:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Come off it

You are talking both.

You are making generalizations about the “setup” and then also pencilling in a couple of complete unknowns and pencilling out our top2 dmen, and then at the same time smoking I don’t know what but I want some about Nashville trading their best player, who is 24 years old for a couple of minor league prospects? Why? why would they do that? Why would any team do that? And btw, he’s been making $4.5M since the start of last year.

Robidas a star in the making??? He’s 32 years old and starts a 4 year deal next year making $3.3M.

Seriously, this is not realistic, it’s fantasy and I’m not even sure what the fantasy is based on.

by yoata on Nov 30, 2009 11:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh and to avoid confusion I meant a problem with me, not like a mental problem. Just so we don’t have another argument based on a misunderstanding.

by Section 312 on Nov 30, 2009 10:23 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well I am talking about in the next 2 years. Salo can’t stay healthy and needs to go. Bieksa I would love to see stay but I don’t think that is going to happen. Mitchell I am not a fan of, especially with how much he makes. He can’t be a shut down guy against guys like Kane and Toews. Iginla types, sure he does ok, but young smaller faster forwards he struggles with.

by Section 312 on Nov 28, 2009 10:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Mitchell & Bieksa play the most minutes on the team, Mitchell is the #1 PKer and Bieksa is on the top PP unit.

How are you planning to replace all that?

by yoata on Nov 29, 2009 8:30 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I am talking in the next couple years. As I have said several times in this thread. I am going to replace with guys we already have and by acquiring a minutes eating stud. I explained this above. Again, I don’t want Bieksa to go anywhere just think he is the most moveable of our expensive D men and we will need to move one of them to get something up front.

by Section 312 on Nov 29, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know

sounds pretty vague, we know those guys are solid, big minute contributors, I’d say we’d need something a tad more to go on that the hope that some prospects turn into the same, let alone something more before planning to rid ourselves of our top 2 dmen, no?

by yoata on Nov 29, 2009 10:44 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think

Hodgson would be as much of a waste on the Wing as Kes, maybe more because he doesn’t have Kes’s size or speed, but you never know, my guess is he’d get moved.

by yoata on Nov 28, 2009 2:59 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

You can’t win in this league unless you have young guys contributing on rookie contracts.

Why do you think a guy would be a waste on the wing? Didn’t Hodgson play a lot of wing at the WJC, especially on the powerplay, since he was skating with Tavares? Or am I remembering something that didn’t happen?

by Section 312 on Nov 28, 2009 3:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Pretty sure

Tavares was on the Wing, when they played together, mostly on the PP iirc. Hodg took a pile of draws, virtually every critical one in the tourney at both ends, he is a playmaker first, a natural centre, and has that ability Kes has to be productive and still play a great two-way game that top centres need. He has a very good shot and can finish, so maybe he can move over, but to me he has the potential to be a #1 centre in this league but I don’t see him getting that opportunity here, especially with the relationship already strained.

by yoata on Nov 28, 2009 3:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So what would you do? Deal Kesler? Try to package the Sedins? Or are you saying that Hodgson has to be moved? What do you try to get back? I really want to see Hodgson turn into the superstar that we haven’t had since Bure and I want him to play here for a long time. I would be gutted if he got traded. Same goes for Kesler. I think he is a captain in the making.

by Section 312 on Nov 28, 2009 3:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Not saying

I would do anything, just raising the question.

I want that too, think you might have guessed that by how hard I took his screwjob by the team, but even without that barrier to get past, I’m trying to figure out how it plays out once he’s on the team.

Sure he can play 3rd line for a year or two, but no budding star has benefitted from that for long, and I’m just not sure he’ll be what he could be on the wing. It is a ways away so never know, but if Kes does get a big long-term deal it doesn’t appear there will be room for Hodg on the top two lines. I don’t think Kes would be near as effective on the wing either, but I could be wrong on either he or Hodg. I just enjoy looking ahead, especially with a prospect like Hodg on the horizon.

by yoata on Nov 28, 2009 3:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I’d rather move Grabner than Hodgson if it came down to it. Regardless of the log jam at center.

by Sean Zandberg on Nov 28, 2009 3:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I would rather move the Sedins, as if that is possible now, than any of our young players. I think Hodgson has the potential to be a better player than either Sedin. Hodgson on the top line in 2 years as a Center with Kesler centering the third line and Grabner and Shirokov on the top two lines as well would make me very happy. I would rather build the way Chicago and Pittsburgh did than continuously try to “reload” like TO does. Shirokov, Hodgson, Schroeder, Sauve, etc etc not to mention Kesler and Grabner and Hansen should be the nucleus of this team in 3 years. I hope that happens.

by Section 312 on Nov 28, 2009 4:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Sorry, that should read Kesler centering the 2nd line.

by Section 312 on Nov 28, 2009 4:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Don't see

the Sedins going anywhere, but you never know.

Who knows, no guarantee Hodg is a top 6 guy eithe, maybe 3rd line centre is his career destiny but we’ll never know otherwise unless he gets the chance to be more.

by yoata on Nov 28, 2009 4:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How likely

you think Hodg getting that chance with the current management?

by yoata on Nov 30, 2009 9:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Agree

on the rookie/low end deal thing, which is part of the reason it was such a mistake to send him back early… one of many many reasons really.

by yoata on Nov 28, 2009 3:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Wait a minute

…we’re now talking about jettisoning the Sedins to allow room for Shirokov and Grabner??

We need MORE forwards, not dealing our top 2.

by Jevant on Nov 30, 2009 7:19 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I would think that the Sedins have no trade clauses…

by Sean Zandberg on Nov 30, 2009 11:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

heh

Section’s trying to gut the team!

by yoata on Nov 30, 2009 11:18 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I was just spitballing about the future of Hodgson and where he and some of our younger forwards fit on a team that has 3 guys, Sedins and Kesler, likely penciled into our top 6 for the next 5-6 years.

by Section 312 on Nov 30, 2009 1:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I know

j/k… you were axeing a bunch of dmen too…

now don’t start swearing! ; )

by yoata on Nov 30, 2009 3:07 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Something is not right in the whole story, I have a feeling, thats all Im going on.

by Jesse Taylor on Dec 1, 2009 8:23 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

It’s funny how 54% of voters don’t care!

by Sean Zandberg on Dec 2, 2009 2:43 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Is it really funny that 54% of Canucks fans don’t care about how their team is handling it’s prospects? Sounds more sad to me than funny.

by Section 312 on Dec 2, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

They’re just worried the other 46% will start singing “feelings” if they do.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.

by casual on Dec 2, 2009 2:46 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Now don’t get all serious on me, Section 312 ;)

by Sean Zandberg on Dec 2, 2009 2:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This Hodgson thing is like the Kryptonite to my normal laidbackness.

by Section 312 on Dec 2, 2009 3:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

From today's Province
Hodgson, through Meehan, has declined numerous interview requests and the Brampton club has extended the media blackout to Battalion head coach Stan Butler. The club says that neither Hodgson nor Butler will grant interviews until the player has returned to playing in games.

Asked if the lockdown had come from the OHL team, a club spokesman said: “No, we’re just following orders.” Whose orders, he wouldn’t say.

Canucks GM Mike Gillis said on Thursday that the dictum doesn’t come from his organization. Asked how involved the Canucks are in Hodgson’s rehab, Gillis said: “We’re monitoring it. He’s under the care of Dr. Miniaci in Cleveland. We know he’s in good hands.”

Crazy. What’s the deal? I think I’m getting it..

by Sean Zandberg on Dec 4, 2009 8:50 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Doesn't seem

to be blowing over that’s for sure…

by yoata on Dec 5, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Since all queries are being directed to Hodgson’s agent, we can prob presume that the media blackout originates there, too. As to the reason for it, there are a lot of possibilities, too many to know for sure.

I’ll stick by what I’ve said all along; no conspiracy, no bad doctoring, just a kid who tried to underplay the extent of his injury (likely, even to himself) cuz no way he was gonna let himself miss out. He then had a poor camp, got cut, and sought a 2nd opinion. The 2nd opinion confirmed the first, that the back was not seriously injured.

Were these diagnoses largely clinical and based on Hodgson’s self-reporting of symptoms? Probably, tho we don’t know for sure if other tests were run at the time(s).

In any event, with his world crashed down around him, he then sought a 3rd opinion, one that told him to take it easy for a while, advice that might have been more helpful if he’d taken it to heart at the start of the summer instead of now, but he’s a stud and his default solution is to work harder.

I also think it’s all got into his head somewhat, too. It’d get into anyone’s head, yours or mine included, the doubts, the worries, the ambiguities. He’ll rest, he’ll train, he’ll play a part season later on in the OHL, prob even get traded to a contender for the playoffs. He’ll be back.

Betcha we’ll never fully hear all the details, either. We’ll eventually get stories that sound kinda complete, but when we look closer, we’ll find out that we still don’t know much; e.g. the nature of the tests that were run, and just what Cody told docs 1 & 2 & 3 along the way.

The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.

by casual on Dec 5, 2009 6:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Again,

what second opinion?

Parroting Gillisgan and AV’s BS over and over won’t make it magically become truth.

Presume all you want, whatever helps keep you from questioning the amighty Nuck management, no matter how many times they make asses of themselves, it’s all good in some people’s minds.

by yoata on Dec 5, 2009 7:23 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Canucks GM Mike Gillis said on Thursday that the dictum doesn’t come from his organization. Asked how involved the Canucks are in Hodgson’s rehab, Gillis said: “We’re monitoring it. He’s under the care of Dr. Miniaci in Cleveland. We know he’s in good hands.”

Gillis also said he understood Hodgson’s rehab was progressing and he was close to playing.

Why would there be a blackout on this story? It’s probably one that both sides would like to turn the page on. There was clearly frustration on Hodgson’s part over how the preseason unfolded and likely his return to junior. And the less-than-smooth remarks made by coach Alain Vigneault regarding Hodgson didn’t help – although they’re now considered water under the bridge.

Hodgson acknowledged during the preseason that his back was bothering him, but said it was getting better.

How does it go from better to not skating for a month?We don’t know, but certainly Hodgson knew that pulling himself out of the lineup would mean a one-way ticket to junior.

by yoata on Dec 5, 2009 8:21 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the Nucks Misconduct community! We scour the web to promptly bring you all of the Vancouver Canucks news when it happens in brutally honest and highly-opinionated fashion.
Start posting about the Canucks »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
SB Nation Survey + Chance to donate $500 to a charity of this community's choice

Recent FanPosts

White_small
Steals and Late Bloomers
Sbn_small
Joey likes Kesler...what about you?
Canucks-1_small
Eastern Conference Playoff Chances UPDATED
Canucks-1_small
Western Conference Playoff Chances UPDATED
Murray_small
hank/dank/bank = best line in the nhl
Vancouver_canucks_v_toronto_maple_leafs_2yuqudnpsdkl_small
Bieksa named among the league's least valuable players
White_small
Oh, What's the Difference?
Sidesmall_small
SF Area Canucks Meetups! Fear NO Fin
Seanprofile2_small
All About Rome

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Follow The Misconduct

Facebook-128x128_medium
Twitter-128x128_medium

SBNation.com Recent Stories

Joe DiPenta won a Stanley Cup with the Anaheim Ducks in 2007. link

An Interview With Portland Pirates Defenseman Joe DiPenta

Carolina Hurricanes left wing Erik Cole, left, celebrates with Bryan Rodney and Jamie McBain (28) after McBain scored the game-winning goal in overtime against the Pittsburgh Penguins in an  NHL hockey game in Pittsburgh Saturday, March 20, 2010.  Carolina won 3-2 in overtime.(AP Photo/Don Wright)

Insert Obvious March Madness Comparison Here: Canes Beat Pens On OT Buzzer-Beater

Photo link

An Interview With Blue Jackets' Prospect Matt Calvert

More from SBNation.com >


Bartenders

Jasonmask_small Yankee Canuck

Seanprofile2_small Sean Zandberg

Pub Regulars

Bcmf_small WAACH 'Cast

Hpim0130_small Smoboy41

6_058_small nucksandpucks

Kentsnowav_large_small canucklehead666