Hodgson Cut; Lukowich Waived
The sun sets on Hodgson for this year. And, according to Kevin Allen of USA Today, Lukowich has been waived.
over 2 years ago
Yankee Canuck
115 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
At least...
Yankee Canuck got a sweet shout out in the Puck Daddy blog today! Although he does forget to cite you towards the end of the post…
It’s not problem, they’re a cool group to work with. And I liked their preview (unlike last year). And McKeon’s too!
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Wrong move
I’m willing to go on record and take the position this was the wrong move. No reason why he shouldn’t get at least a cup of coffee in the bigs.
I am stunned the organization felt that Tanner Glass and Aaron Rome are more important to the franchise this year than Cody Hodgson and Brad Lukowich. Short sighted.
Rome is cheaper. And I think you could write a small book about what is going on with Hodgson and what’s the best move organizationally.
What’s a bit depressing is the “strongest” prospects Vancouver has – Schneider, Grabner and Hodgson – all shit the bed during the preseason and it’ll take some particular circumstances to see two of them in the bigs this year.
Thank god for Shirokov.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Agreed. Given all the factors involved, I think giving CH some injury-free time to show his stuff made more sense. Given his age, Tanner Glass has far less upside … but he’s more experienced and ready right at this moment, so I gotta think that was the deciding factor.
But aren’t Hodgson and Tanner 2 completely different types of players? Tanner is more of a bottom 6 guy where Cody is meant for top 6. Obviously there is a need in the bottom 6 somewhere to keep Glass. It’s just another angle I’m throwing at you.
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 29, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Right I think Hodgson’s slot in the top six was complicated by good camps from Wellwood and Shirokov. He needed to outplay one of them and he didn’t. Certainly not the end of the world. I guess it sets up the very remote possibility that he and Schroeder make statements next year.
To return to my point above though re: Schneider and Grabner, I don’t know what to do there anymore. Especially with Grabner.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't understand...
…the desperation to keep a guy like Bernier or Raymond or Wellwood or even Shirokov off the 3rd or 4th lines. And if Shirokov is headed back to Manitoba in 2 weeks (please no), the Hodgson decision will be regretted.
I have no idea what is supposed to be gained by Hodgson going back to junior, unless management things we have 13 better forwards in Vancouver right now. And in my opinion, that is certainly not the case.
What more does he need to do in Brampton?
Nothing….except come to Canucks camp and kick ass next year instead of sucking.
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 29, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Nothing….except come to Canucks camp and kick ass next year instead of sucking.
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 29, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Well sending him down now or later means he doesn’t hit waivers so it’s a free one way ride. If we made the cut for Thursday than they would have had to subject someone to waivers and maybe they know (like Mike Brown and Matt Pettinger last year) that they’ll definitely lose the guy.
So maybe it’s better for Hodgson to stay for nine games but if that means Vancouver loses an asset for this season (regardless if we snicker at the idea of Glass or Rome being an asset) isn’t it better for the team to move Cody now?
Don’t get me wrong, I wanted him on the team too. But I can see what Gillis and AV are thinking.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Assuming the guaranteed loss of Hodgson for the year is less than the loss of that asset, that makes sense. I do see your point.
I simply feel that the difference between Tanner Glass and the next 4th line plugger from the AHL is NOT worth giving up on Hodgson for the year. And that’s why I don’t like this move.
I hear ya
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions
So plug Cody on the 4th line then? Is that what you’re saying? Or would you want to demote someone like Raymond or Bernier down to the 4th line to make room for Hodgson in the top 6?(or 9). Those aren’t fair options.
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 29, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t understand…
…the desperation to keep a guy like Bernier or Raymond or Wellwood or even Shirokov off the 3rd or 4th lines.
So if you’re convinced Cody can’t play on the 4th line (I’m not convinced that he couldn’t, but let’s say that for the sake of argument), then yeah, I demote Raymond or Bernier or whomever to get him a few minutes.
I doubt Gillis is concerned with what is “fair”. One could make a strong argument that it’s not fair to rip a player based on the fact he was playing while hurt and was just slowly starting to get healthy (and to be clear, I’m not saying you are doing that. Just making a comment.).
When I say “fair” I mean that the guys that would have to be demoted to less minutes have done nothing to deserve that and are better at the NHL level than Hodgson is.
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 29, 2009 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions
… but have less potential than he does.
That said, apparently the team decided that Cody just wasn’t ready and that his potential will still be there next year. For his sake, I hope he doesn’t end up losing two years (one junior, one Moose) in the process.
On the plate for next year, amongst others:
UFA: Wellwood
RFA: Glass, Raymond, Hansen
And those are just the fw’s, so some slots will be opening up, cuz if the above guys play poorly this year, they’re gone; if they play well, they will expect a raise.
I have high expectations for Raymond /Wellwood in contract years.
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 29, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Pudge was in one last year too!
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh yeah..and look at how he turned out! Money money!
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 29, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Or he plays his heart out and is a trade asset at the deadline!
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Woodrow…you’re killing me here….
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Once again
Jevant knows.
There is only one explaination, that they did not want to give up a year of Hodgson’s rights just yet, and so they actually went to the extent of declining their option to keep him around for 9 games despite Hansen and Demitra being injured for how long?
Um… keeping him for only 9 games would allow them to keep the rights anyway. I don’t get what you mean.
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Uh
that’s exactly why they didn’t need to be in any rush to cut him… unless they really didn’t want to see what he could do…
Either way
They were not interested in giving the kid a fair shake, never have been, that much is pretty obvious now for sure.
Only other explaination I can see is that somehow this kid who has been universally praised as an unselfish team first guy suddenly developed an attitude problem?
Disagree again.
No, it’s not “obvious.” If it were, I would see it myself cuz I’m a pretty obvious guy.
I don’t at all think it happened as you describe, that they “was agin him” from the outset. Instead, I think they wanted to give him every opportunity. Heck, even Gagner came out & publicly said that the kids was ready for the next step. Just didn’t work out that way.
Again
How does 10-12 mins per game and a premature demotion back to junior = “give him every opportunity”???
Just because they say they did, doesn’t mean they did because they clearly didn’t.
Maybe they didn’t want to! I don’t blame them!
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 29, 2009 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Disagree.
The 9 games would have been freebies as far as contract status goes, so there was no reason to cut Cody at this time, esp in light of his injury … unless they strongly felt that: the injury was irrelevant; that Hodgson just wasn’t ready, regardless of health; and that they might as well get on with the season without him rather than raising false expectations.
One other possibility, of course, is that the injury is worse than we’ve heard , which leads via a different route to the same conclusion: Cody was not gonna be able to demo his wares w/in the timeframe so they might as well cut him now.
I discount the “injury is worse than we’ve heard” possibility, cuz we wouldda seen more evidence on the ice. More likely, they just didn’t think he was ready yet.
Once again, Yoata, I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic with me or not…haha. I’ll assume not. Tell me if you are :)
The rest of your comments suggest you are agreeing with me, and therefore I’ll assume no sarcasm for the time being…
Carry on…
Well, yoata, clearly we have a different perspective on this.
So from what I gather, you think that Canucks management from the outset decided that they didn’t need CoHo on the team this year, and therefore set the situation up for him to fail (i.e. limited ice time and playing with low calibre linemates) so that it would leave an appearance like they gave him a shot, to keep with their mantra that everyone must earn their spot, etc. But their real motivation was to keep him out of the pros this year so that they can hold on to his rights one more year, thinking that will be of future benefit to the squad.
I on the other hand think that they did give CoHo a shot, albeit limited due to his injury early on, and that he failed to impress when given PP time with elite players and was otherwise mediocre, thus his limited ice time was due to the fact that he failed to earn himself anymore.
Is that a fair assessment of our differing perspectives?
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't know what their motivation was
on that I can only speculate, but why with a “freebie” 9 games and two guys injured would they not give him a real chance to get well beyond his injury, get up to speed and show what he can do?
Again, how can you say that giving him low mins per game for the last 5 games = every opportunity to succeed???
Why do you limit icetime for him in the preseason? The games don’t count, give him a real shot!
Look at Glass’ numbers, i more game than Hodgson, same number of points, worse +/-, more icetime, WAY less potential.
So who failed to impress?
What more does he need to do in Brampton?
As Hodge-son he was the boy wonder. As Hod-son he didn’t cut it. Cody, please change the pronunciation of your surname back to Hodge-son and you’ll be doing us fans, the city of Vancouver, AV, MG and the Aquilini’s, not to mention yourself, a great big favor.8)
by Bobby Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions
I still would have flogged O’Brien and kept Lukowich. Just my opinion. Some other team is going to snap him up real quick.
Well we sort of knew Lukowich was a throw in for Ehrhoff anyway right? If they weren’t up against the cap, I think he’d still be here but it’s time to start nickel and diming this roster down to the 23 players. That helps explain Glass and Rome more than anything else (to me).
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Oh yeah. I just have always been a fan of the guy and hoped that wasn’t the case.
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 29, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m sure MG did flog OB, however any team that he approached probably just said “no thanks, I’ll just wait until waiver wire day, and nab one of your Dmen for free”…
I’m not losing any sleep over Luko – he was a salary dump add-in on the Ehrhoff deal, which we basically got for free, only a few weeks ago. Would have been nice to keep him, but Ehrhoff was the real score in that deal.
Will be interesting to see what happens when Schneider is back.
Yeah…but now look at how many offensive defencemen we have on the roster! Isn’t this the opposite side of the spectrum now. You need a guys like Lukowich and Mitchell-types back there. At least 2 of them. OB looks like he wants to score more this year as well.
I will say this right now…watch how many odd-man rushes go against the Canucks this season. For all who wanted exciting hockey in Vancouver you’re going to get it. Lou is going to see a lot more pucks this year.
I just don’t like it. Long live defence!
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 29, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Just noticed that Funk and Nycholat have been waived too. If all true, the team is down to 22 players.
With Rypien out with the flu, that would make the lines for Thursday look like (from the same article):
Daniel Sedin-Henrik Sedin-Alex Burrows
Sergei Shirokov-Ryan Kesler-Mikael Samuelsson
Mason Raymond-Kyle Wellwood-Steve Bernier
Tanner Glass-Ryan Johnson-Darcy Hordichuk
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
And those are 4 lines I can agree with.
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 29, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not opposed to those lines either. But I still think it was too early to send Hodgson down; no one was gonna claim Glass, anyway.
In fact, the Hodgson decision seems so clearly premature to me that I suspect what it really means is that the team did NOT think it was the injury that slowed Cody down – they had to have viewed that as coincidental but insufficient – it was just that he was too young and not ready anyway.
Such a shame he couldn’t go to the Moose. What’s the purpose of that rule, anyway? I assume there is a purpose (protect the junior teams from poaching?), but none that I can think of seems compelling.
Good points here.
I don’t think it was the injury that significantly affect Cody. He just didn’t look comfortable out there, although he got better with each game.
I think the poaching issue is the reason for that rule. It’s too bad because he could really learn the Canucks/Moose system down there rather not learning much in junior. On the bright side, I can attend some Brampton games before he leaves Ontario for good.
I think the Canucks should buy whichever OHL team he ends up playing for, and just turn it into a “let’s teach Cody what we want him to know” team. And then intentionally not make the playoffs, so that he becomes available to the Canucks as early as possible at the end of the season. Who’s with me!
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
So Silent G can’t be brought back up at any point in the season, no matter what?
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
Not until after Brampton's season is done...
…or whatever team he ultimately ends up with. I’m guessing he’s in Windsor and making another long Memorial Cup run.
Why wouldn’t London make a play for him? They always seem to be in the hunt.
Also, I thought there could be emergency call-ups, if there was a slew of injuries, or what not.
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
I hope the Knights do. I’d probably get a Knights jersey with his name on it (it would be the first Knights-Canucks connection…leaving aside the all-too-short Justin Taylor experiment from this year’s rookie camp). But I don’t know if they’d have the pieces to make a deal…they went all in for Tavares last year.
That said, I never discount the Hunters, so I’m sure they’ll be in the mix.
He can be brought back up once his season in Brampton is done. So let’s all pray that they have a mediocre season, so that he can be brought up come playoff time if need be.
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions
If Brampton is out of it...
…he’ll be traded at the deadline, just like Tavares was last year. Or any awesome junior player stuck on a bad team.
They need him to sell tickets, esp season’s tickets sold earlier in the year. Otherwise, they’re just a non-playoff team with no big changes from last year so why pay to watch them?
Tough spot for the kid, but if he hangs in there, he’ll make a few mil extra in about 3 years when he goes from entry-level to RFA.
This decision, by the way, suggests that Hansen’s injury may not be so bad. I do not believe he has been put on LTIR yet. Had he been, the Canucks could have kept one more player. Perhaps a good sign?
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 12:30 PM PDT reply actions
Well, apparently, according to Team 1040, Demitra is no longer on the LTIR and should be ready to play soon, if not on Thurs.
by Bobby Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Well this is the first time I have to take serious issue with a decision that MG has made. I am fine with Luko being waived as I would have taken the trade as White and Rahimi for Erhoff. To be honest I think I would prefer SOB to Lukowich anyway although I do wish SOB was making a little less money.
What I have a real problem with is how they handled Cody Hodgson. I think I did more than enough to make my position on this clear but to recap. Hodgson is too good for junior. He is going to regress this year. No matter how much character a guy has he will always have trouble motivating himself to dominate at a level that he has already dominated, when there are higher levels to reach. Cody is going to develop bad habits, he is not going to get better playing against inferior opponents and therefore you will see a worse player in camp this time next year. Now maybe he will get better as the camp goes along, maybe he is a really coachable kid and they can get him to a suitable level during next years camp that he can make a push to make the team. But much like Luc Bourdon I can’t see it happening. He is going to take months of AHL hockey before he is ready to play at this level again. The question fans need to ask is this…given Hodgson’s potential and ability did the Canucks give him a fair shot to make this team? Now when I mean fair I don’t mean fair to Tanner Glass or the other players of his ilk that were trying to make this team because, really, I don’t give two shits about Tanner Glass. I mean fair to Hodgson and fair to the long term AND short term potential of this team. In other words, Hodgson’s potential means the organization should be giving him a MUCH longer leash because ultimately the level the team could reach is potentially MUCH higher with Hodgson than with Glass. If Hodgson becomes a Toews type rookie then the Canucks are Stanley Cup contenders yet if he doesn’t reach that level he is still about as good as Glass. The base level of the Canucks is the same with Glass or Hodgson but the ceiling they could reach as a club is way higher with Hodgson. That’s how I see it anyway.
As for the contract issues. If Hodgson contributes to this team then who cares if he gets to RFA status sooner? Eventually we will have to sign him long term anyway. Plus in 3 years time we would have a completely different looking D corps and the cap will have gone up. Hell who even knows what kind of CBA we will be operating under in 3 years? Will the NHL still exist in 3 years? Will Hodgson still be here in 3 years? I think as a team we have to try to plan for the next 2-3 years and try to win in that period. It’s like billiards. You should be planning 3 shots ahead.
And finally this move means Cody Hodgson is trade bait. There is a chance that when we go shopping for a sniper later this year we will have to package Hodgson, Schnieder and a player off of our roster.Now if Chicago has to deal Toews because of cap problems then fine let’s make that trade. But what if we take a shot at a cup, trade away Hodgson for a sniper on an expiring contract and then don’t win the cup? To me Hodgson on the roster trying to fill that scoring role is the best choice. I just hope I am wrong.
by Section 312 on Sep 29, 2009 1:24 PM PDT reply actions
I agree, but apparently the team (AV & MG in particular) doesn’t … they just don’t think CH is ready yet.
The only other explanation is a conspiracy theory, that the team is trying so hard to save money three years out that they are willing to sacrifice the team this year to do so. I don’t buy that, and their not utilizing the “free” 9 games to look at CH more closely tells me they just didn’t think he was ready, injury or not.
I remain surprised, tho. Not at all what I expected.
I agree
although it’s hardly the first time I have a serious issue with Gillisgan’s decision making.
Souptin for $10M x 2 years didn’t almost make you puke?
Report on Team 1040 has it that Demo has NOT been placed on LTIR, meaning the Canucks may be expecting him back earlier than previously thought. So this maybe explains things more… had to keep Rome over Luko and Glass over CoHo because they allow the cap space to have Demo on the active 23 man roster.
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 2:39 PM PDT reply actions
and IF they are right….then we have cap issues…
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 29, 2009 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions
1040 seemed to think that with MSchneids and Hanseon on LTIR, and Luko and CoHo and Funk gone, with the cheap Rome and Glass remaining, we’re actually right up to the cap now. We’re ok until MSchneids returns in that case.
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions
In the hundreds of thousands, again according to Team 1040.
by Bobby Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Shuffle as you please, but ….
Sedin-Sedin-Samuelsson
Shirok-Kesler-Burrows
Raymond-Wellwood-Bernier
Hordi-Johnson-Rypien
So where does Demo slot in? Who has to move to make room? I’m betting … pure speculation here … Demo gets some time with the Sedins.
Why? Cuz I still think Demo is gonna be traded, and now’s a good time since he’s UFA at season’s end, and playing w/the twins would showcase him for a trade. Demo’s happy, maybe he can even help to pick his next team but in any event he can prob land another 2 year deal somewhere after racking up the hilite-reel plays w/the twins. Gillis is happy, he gets value in return and solves his cap woes.
Ok, it’s just a guess, and prob wrong, but it’s getting awfully crowded on that roster, isn’t it? Man, I’d hate to see Shirok sent to the Moose; I’d love to see him in the regular season for a while and see how he holds up.
Why? Cuz I still think Demo is gonna be traded
Bless your damned heart. I hope so. If not..Shirokov gets demoted.
to Manitoba. Didn’t Demo already get a chance with the Twins.? He fits better with Kesler, as proven last year. Oh Sundin where art thou?? (I kid) sniff
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 29, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Shirokov gets demoted
I’d have to disagree with you on that one.
by Bobby Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Well then somebody gets traded when Demo gets back.
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 29, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions
… yes, but only when Hansen returns. Till then, I think he’s at least on the 23-man roster and can get some time and show us what he can do when the games are for real.
You know, I had speculated before that Demo was helping Gillis by timing his injury and recovery so well. If true, then Gillis has had feelers out re a trade and has got back the reply, “let us see him play first so we know he’s ok” frm someone.
I hope it’s true, but I’m really just guessing and since I sure guessed wrong on CH why should I trust my own judgment now?
Good Lord, I forgot about Hansen
What a embarrassment of riches we have. I don’t dislike any of those players on our roster (except Demo a little bit)
I think Gillis has it in his best interest to dress the best team possible right off the bat. Why fuck around? The team needs to kick ass right out of the gate. If Demo can play, he should play, even if that means sending Shirokov to the minors.
The best team is the one that can win the cup, which includes a seasoned Shirok ready to make a contribution, so Gillis has a real balancing act here.
If the team is rolling along, he can afford to give more ice time to up-and-comers, but … well, how much better is a healthy Demo than a healthy Shirok, really? And we still have those cap issues when MS returns, so there’s a lot more water gonna flow under this bridge yet.
Gillis was just on Team 1040.
He said he wants Shirokov to play the whole year with the Canucks.
He said it wouldn’t be fair to the current Canucks roster if Hodgson made it because Cody disappointed. Dave Gagner will be working with Hodgson in the OHL, especially his speed.
That all sounds much better. We still have cap issues, tho, when Demo and MS return (and to a lesser extent, Hansen). Either Demo goes or we gotta deal one of our more expensive D-men.
Yeah, for sure. I’d go with Raymond plus a D-man getting moved. Just a guess.
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 29, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions
To me it seems that Raymond has developed to the point where he is, at this time, untradeable.
by Bobby Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions
No one is untradeable. No one. If you can improve the team you have to be willing to part with anyone. And really Raymond isn’t elite yet either so no reason not to move him.
by Section 312 on Sep 29, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Seems like this year’s Raymond is better that last year’s Raymond, based on the preseason, but the regular season will tell the tale.
by Bobby Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions
I figure Raymond more because it’s a contract year for him. What other guy on that top 9 would they trade away? Don’t say Wellwood. Don’t say it!!
OT: Hey look! A Blackhawks fail story! yay!
by Sean Zandberg on Sep 29, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Maybe Cody could play with Zurich? Sounds like a better league than Junior, anyway (I mean, yeah, it was only the Hawks they beat, but still…)
Don’t send a 19 year old Canadian kid to Europe to learn to play hockey. Hells no.
by Beantown Canuck on Sep 29, 2009 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I actually think that is a great idea. I would send Hodgson to Sweden in a heart beat. Playing against men. Seasoned pro hockey players. It seems to work for developing players I mean the Russians and Swedes both do it and they are way ahead of the American’s at this point. At least he would have to try over there.
by Section 312 on Sep 29, 2009 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Sweden? Under the watchful gaze of mats Sundin and Thomas Gradin? That almost does make sense, doesn’t it?
Hodgson biggest weakness is his skating, or so it seems, and over there against Swedes (who are born with flapping jerseys, or so I’m told) on the big ice surface, he’d sure get to practice his stride!
Dave Gagner? God could be working with Hodgson and he would regress playing junior. He is too good for that level, you can’t really grow as an athlete at the right speed unless you are playing people better than yourself. Plus he will develop bad habits since he will be able to cheat a little because as mentioned he is too good for that level.
by Section 312 on Sep 29, 2009 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions
If he were a real buddy, he’d move his buddy while the movin’ was good, cuz otherwise his buddy hits the UFA market a year older and, who knows, with another year of injury behind him. So whether Gillis is friend or foe, the logic is the same (well, in my world at least).
Play him the twins, says I; show a little cleavage then seal the deal!
Haha! Jesus! You we don’t even know for sure that Shirokov is going to stick with the team after X amount of games, or if he can handle the grind. If we flog Demo, I want a roster player in return that can play on line 2.
Good point, but hey, look before you leap is for squishes!
BTW, I looked at the CapGeek figures you linked. A question for you – or anyone else who knows the answer: Why is Shirok’s cap hit $1.35m when he’s on a two-year deal at $0.850m per?
The diff would cover our current overrun at the cap hit bank.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Nucks Misconduct Store
Your clothing sucks. Go fix it.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
