Examining the pros and cons of the Cody Hodgson trade

Mike Gillis surprised everyone Monday with the announcement that beloved nerd Cody Hodgson had been traded to the Buffalo Sabres for budding power winger Zack Kassian. Many simply didn’t know how to take it. Some were sadder than Sad Cody and Sad Keanu put together. Some were angrier than angry Bieksa. Others could only make nonsensical Luongo faces.

Emotions were flying high. (Frankly, it’s a wonder there were no police cruisers overturned. Clearly, the Heart of a Canuck fan re-education campaign is working. We tip our hat to you, kinder, gentler Canuck nation.)

But now, with the benefit of a good night’s sleep behind us, we at PITB thought it might be time to recompose ourselves, gather our wits (obliterated as they were after yesterday’s gruelling all-day chat), apply a little reason to the situation, and weigh the pros and cons.

***

PRO – Zack Kassian could be the next Cam Neely, except this time the Canucks traded for him rather than trading him away. Just this past September, at the Traverse City Rookie tournament, Grantland’s Katie Baker observed that Kassian was a man among boys, meaning he’s not just big — he’s hockey big. But he’s got great skill and soft hands, too. If he reaches his potential, Kassian could be, like Neely, one of the NHL’s elite power forwards.

CON – Kassian could also be the next Alek Stojanov, except this time the Canucks traded for him rather than trading him away. The fact is that Kassian, unlike Cody Hodgson, has yet to even begin proving himself at the NHL level, and there’s never a guarantee that he gets to where some say he will. Naysayers will point out that he has just 3 goals and 4 assists in 27 NHL games.

PRO - That’s a stupid comparison. Not only are Kassian and Stojanov very different players, but Kassian already has the same amount of points as Stojanov had in his entire, 107-game NHL career. Kassian’s already a better player. And as for the Hodgson comparisons, in Hodgson’s first 27 games, he only registered 4 more points. It’s still far too early to draw any conclusions from Kassian’s NHL returns.

CON- Hodgson’s NHL returns were already coming in, and they were great. He was 5th in scoring among rookies with some pretty limited icetime. The Canucks get a guy still looking to establish himself as an NHLer; the Sabres get a Calder candidate centre who has scored 33 points in 63 games and was on pace for 43 points in his rookie season.

PRO – You know what slowish, savvy centre had 45 points in his rookie season? Kyle Wellwood. And sure, Hodgson has a stronger work ethic and he didn’t have the benefit of playing with Mats Sundin, but it’s not like Cody did it with no help: he scored those points in feather soft minutes on the third line. Even looking at his monster January, his generous deployment inflated his totals. If he can’t continue that production against stiffer competition, the Canucks may have just sold high on a guy whose coach managed to obscure his weaknesses while highlighting his strengths. Cam Charron has also suggested this.

CON- Either way, the Canucks lost an offensive weapon, a fact that’s even more glaring when you consider that Sami Pahlsson, his replacement, has 11 points this season. Trading away Hodgson hurts Vancouver’s scoring depth, weakening the second unit powerplay and making the third line less offensively potent with the playoffs coming up.

PRO - The Canucks also lost a defensive liability, which may have been a more pressing concern going into the playoffs. Hodgson’s a questionable backchecker and skater, and would very likely have been a weak link for opponents to attack. Pahlsson, on the other hand, is a far superior defensive player and will give the Canucks two quality checking lines and zero defensively suspect pivots.

CON – Hodgson was seen as the future of the franchise by Canucks fans. Furthermore, with his skillset, his leadership abilities, his likeable demeanor (he played chess!), and the fact that he was a natural centre, many saw him as the next Trevor Linden. This, of course, stirred all sorts of emotions and caused all our fears to melt away, much like the effects of staring into Trevor Linden’s dreamy eyes.

PRO – We won’t have to wait long for another Trevor Linden comparable. Every young centre the organization drafts who even has a whiff of leadership ability gets slapped with that tag. There will be other next Trevor Lindens.

CON - Yeah but Linden was clutch and Hodgson is clutch.

PRO - Clutch is a myth. Seriously, it’s not a quality players have. It’s an adjective we use to describe plays that happen in a narrative vacuum. Yes, Cody Hodgson scored some “clutch” goals in January, but you know what wasn’t clutch? Allowing a big goal to the Red Wings on the shift after he scored a clutch goal last Thursday. Now that Hodgson’s gone, someone else on the Canucks will score clutch goals and we’ll forget all about this nonsense.

CON -  All Cody does is win.

PRO - One imagines this narrative will will lose some of its steam after a few seasons in Buffalo.

CON – Kassian’s comparable is Todd Bertuzzi. This is a con, of course, because fans hate Bertuzzi unequivocally now. Because of how his tenure with the franchise ended, with broken necks and vociferous refusals to play defence, “Next Todd Bertuzzi” simply doesn’t give the franchise the warm and fuzzies like “Next Trevor Linden” does. Perception is not on Kassian’s side. The notion of Kassian as a mindless thug is reinforced by his barfight arrest and his history of dirty hits.

PRO - Negative connotations aside, Bertuzzi comparables are a good thing. While this may be blasphemous, at his best, Bertuzzi was better than Trevor Linden at his best. Sure, Linden’s number is retired, his legend is revered, and the dude was and remains a stud, but Bertuzzi had more raw hockey playing ability. Granted, Bertuzzi being better than Linden doesn’t mean Kassian is better than Hodgson, but the Canucks need a star power winger more than they need a star centre (they already have two). Said our old pal Wisp: the Canucks got a shiny round peg that fits into their round hole. Unfortunately, they had to trade their shiny square peg for it.

CON – Previous power forwards with potential acquired via trade from the Buffalo Sabres, Taylor Pyatt and Steve Bernier, didn’t turn out so well for the Canucks. It doesn’t help that both Pyatt and Bernier were, like Kassian, first-round picks touted as the next great power forward. Pyatt was drafted 8th overall; Bernier was drafted 16th overall.

PRO - By the time Pyatt and Bernier came to the Canucks, they were already underachievers who hadn’t lived up to expectations; Kassian comes to the Canucks with all of his potential intact. Kassian’s a highly-rated prospect who remains highly-rated enough to command a Cody Hodgson-level prospect in return. Pyatt and Bernier were reclamation projects on their way to their third NHL teams and had for a draft picks — a 2nd and 3rd for Bernier, and just a 4th for Pyatt.

CON – Kassian may not be able to contribute in this year’s playoffs.

PRO - He should be able to contribute in two very distinct ways: first, as bottom-six grit that can actually play and move up the lineup if necessary (perhaps with a little more offensive punch than, say, Tanner Glass), and second, in terms of his playoff beard-growing ability. Kassian’s got chops.

CON – The debate over Cody Hodgson’s ice time is over, meaning we have nothing left to talk about. And the Daniel Wagner/Ritch Winter slap fight will, sadly, never happen.

Tags: , , , ,

48 comments

  1. Kyle
    February 28, 2012

    Trevor Linden comparison’s are silly. See, unlike Cody, Trevor COULD play right wing.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +11 (from 19 votes)
  2. Lenny
    February 28, 2012

    CON – If Kesler or Henrik gets injured in the playoffs, we don’t have another offensive centre to step up; thus we can kiss the Stanley Cup goodbye.

    PRO – If we get to the Finals intact against the Bruins, we can match their physicality pound for pound.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +9 (from 11 votes)
    • Prophet
      February 28, 2012

      PRO – If Kesler and/or Henrik gets injured in the playoffs, we’re in big trouble whether or not Hodgson is playing. We have to balance that with the probability that Henrik or Kesler gets injured is probably a bit less when Kassian is on the ice rather than Hodgson.

      CON – If we do get to the Finals, Kassian could take himself out of the lineup by some big nasty hit that gets himself suspended for the duration of the Finals.

      PRO – The recipient of the nasty hit is Marchand.

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: +38 (from 42 votes)
  3. Chris
    February 28, 2012

    The “Pro” mentioning Pahlsson is irrelevant, they were separate trades. A couple of months with Pahlsson didn’t mean we had to throw away 10 years of Cody.

    I guess all there is to do is hold one’s nose and cheer for “Bertuzzi 2.0″ just like I did for grouchy, unpleasant Bertuzzi 1.0 for the two and a half years he didn’t suck or float. And by Bertuzzi 2.0, I mean Stojanov 2.0. Only this time, we were the ones trading a classy and likable player away to get him. Your Pros are all optimistic speculations on potential, your cons are all spot on. Worst trade Gillis has ever made, you heard it here for the 1,000,000th time.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: -13 (from 29 votes)
    • Harrison Mooney
      February 28, 2012

      Fair. I’d argue that any positive opinions you have on Hodgson are optimistic speculation as well. But only time will tell.

      VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: +16 (from 16 votes)
    • natevk
      February 28, 2012

      I tweeted this, but I really think it’s a stretch to say that fans hate Bertuzzi now. I was at the Naslund retirement ceremony and I recall Bert getting a huge ovation when he appeared on the video.
      Also, I’ve followed his career every step of the way since he left Vancouver and never quit being a fan of his. I really don’t think myself, and my friends who are Canucks fans are the only ones that feel this way.
      One of the best selling attributes about Kassian is that he’s a Bertuzzi fan. Let’s hope his hands are anywhere near the skill level of Big Bert and we’ll have a star on our hands in no time!

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: +13 (from 13 votes)
      • bergberg
        February 29, 2012

        Agreed! My Bertuzzi love has been unwavering!

        VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)
    • Dave Robinson (@dcrwrites)
      February 29, 2012

      Yes they were separate trades, but it can be argued that the Hodgson trade would not have gone down the same way but for the Pahlsson trade. We do know that the Pahlsson trade was announced well before Hodgson’s, so it’s reasonable to expect that it was taken into consideration when that deal was being made.

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)
    • canucks in europe
      February 29, 2012

      I don’t think you can discount the impact of picking up pahlsson had on this trade. Yes it was a separate trade but part of a bigger plan. If the canucks don’t get pahlsson do they still make the deal for kassian?

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)
  4. Gabrielle
    February 28, 2012

    One thing I find sort of funny and sort of sad is that right beneath the Canucks Hockey Blog’s logo, it says, “the cody hodgson era begins.”

    The Cody Hodgson era ends. :(

    The Zack Kassian era begins! :)

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)
  5. peanutflower
    February 28, 2012

    I’ll take a Bertuzzi who wants to play any day over a player like Hodgson. I always felt a bit uneasy about all the shenanigans preceding Cody playing this year and about the “love” bestowed upon him so quickly, but that’s just me, I guess. It wasn’t helped by finding out that Cody’s agent is apparently both a round peg and a square peg trying to fit into a hole that isn’t there. Thanks, PITB, for laying this out logically rather than succumbing to the somewhat illogical and angst ridden leanings of CDC, and even some of the mainstream media. That’s why I read PITB! And seriously, I’m just dying to go to a bunch of Canuck road games and repeatedly yell Pass It to Bulis at random moments. That’s just hilarious.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +10 (from 16 votes)
    • warren
      March 1, 2012

      good comments as always peanutflower

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  6. Lenny
    February 28, 2012

    PRO – Kassian playing on the same line with Lapierre should be something. Lapierre starts the brawls and Kassian finishs them.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +12 (from 12 votes)
  7. Zach Morris
    February 28, 2012

    At it’s most shallow, this whole situation is quite funny.
    Last five? six? seasons, we’ve wanted a big power forward, and the hue and cry got even louder after the loss to big Boston.
    Now we’ve got one, and our first reaction is, like typical Canuck fans, to complain: “Aw man! We had to trade Hodgson!”
    Celebrate the gain, fans.
    Be optimistic!

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +31 (from 33 votes)
    • Harrison Mooney
      February 28, 2012

      Yep.

      VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)
  8. Prophet
    February 28, 2012

    PRO – As much as I’m a Luongo supporter, I’m glad it was Cody rather than Corey for an unproven power forward.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +15 (from 19 votes)
    • Mack
      February 29, 2012

      I would’ve much, much rather traded Cory than Cody. He’s a great insurance policy, but that’s about it. I’d rather have someone who can contribute in every playoff game than someone who’s going to sit on the bench for all of them.

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: -2 (from 10 votes)
      • canucks in europe
        February 29, 2012

        How much more will we get for Cory before the real trade deadline…the draft? if we think this trade was big just wait until summer.

        VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)
        • Mack
          February 29, 2012

          Oh no, I agree. The draft is the place to trade Schneids. I just personally would move him before Cody every time.

          VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
          Rating: -2 (from 4 votes)
  9. Chris B
    February 28, 2012

    PRO – another generation of Canucks fans gets to hear about Neely and a First for Pedersen

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +11 (from 11 votes)
  10. akidd
    February 28, 2012

    “Kassian’s a highly-rated prospect who remains highly-rated enough to command a Cody Hodgson-level prospect in return.”

    a bit of circular logic there but otherwise i commend your effort at neutrality here. my earlier question still remains. what’s your gut feeling here? after laying out the argument what do you think at this time? you like? no like?

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)
    • akidd
      February 28, 2012

      sorry didn’t see your reply on the earlier thread but…

      “On the plus side, I think it gives me the win in our ongoing debate over Hodgson. Great offensively, mediocre enough defensively to be traded without remorse.”

      hodgson’s defense according to av and gillis perhaps. the instance you cited was one where 90% of the goat horn’s were worn by rome. if he didn’t get any defensive zone starts how do we know how he would have performed. and as for remorse well…we’ll see about that. so far after 60 mins, the new defensive juggernaut gave up a ton of chances and didn’t generate much. booth and raymond look as ineffective as ever.

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: -1 (from 5 votes)
      • Harrison Mooney
        February 28, 2012

        You hate everything, don’t you akidd?

        VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: +8 (from 10 votes)
  11. foobarbear
    February 28, 2012

    in a vacuum, organization should trade square pegs for round pegs more often. especially at the prospect level–because first off organizations tend to draft the best players they can, and secondly personnel evolve over time and almost surely young players don’t fill a need, no matter how talented they may be. this especially benefits young players in general who get additional opportunities.

    but as we witness first hand (do we fans count as witnesses?) trading big-time prospects are so hazardous for GMs. if you lose, you lose BIG with the fanbase. if you win, you’re SUPPOSED to when you trade away such prized talent. it’s really no win. from the GM’s perspective, even if the expected outcome is 50-50, the variance is so huge that it’s simply not in most GM’s self interest to do so. nobody is completely risk-neutral.

    so, the flip side is that we must applaud MG for making such a risky move. cody indeed doesn’t quite fill a need. kassian does. cody might become a point-a-game player, but certainly not on this team before the sedins are finished as top minute getters. by then, our window of winning is pretty much gone anyway.

    for now, i am saddened by the loss of my favorite player. i wish him the best of luck and sure as heck i hope kassian doesn’t get booed at Rogers Arena at the next home game. you can almost feel that coming.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +13 (from 13 votes)
    • CC
      February 28, 2012

      Very well said, foobar. I know it’s not in Canuck fans’ DNA to trust management, but at the very least we should suspend judgement until we have more data points on this fascinating trade. We all know Hodgson, and one of the reasons we all love him is because we’ve followed his roller coaster career since the day he was drafted. This is the hockey equivalent of that girl you had a huge crush on in high school…the one who finally FINALLY!! warms up to you…before moving to Toronto. But this is different because there’s a keeper coming back. The main difference is that we know nothing about Kassian, and there’s a reason why a lot of Sabres fans are as pissed as we are that their great Canadian hope has been traded to the other coast.

      I know this is a hockey blog, but this situation bears strong resemblance to other sports…at least more resemblance than it does to trades the Canucks made 10 and 25 years ago. In the NFL, for example, coaches consistently make sub-optimal decisions because of something called “loss aversion.” That is, making unpopular (ie unconventional) decisions has limited upside and enormous downside, so only coaches with total job security make these decisions. If you go for it on 4th down and fail, you are vilified. If you succeed, no big deal. In this case, with the Canucks reaching Game 7 of the SCF, you bet GMMG is going for it on 4th and goal.

      I mentioned in a PITB post yesterday that this also has a distinct MLB feel to it. In baseball, GM’s never used to trade star prospects because of how dumb they’d look if the prospect hit it big. But with the advent of sports analytics and sabremetrics, GMs have much more information, leading to more accurate evaluations/projections, leading to fewer transaction risks and more trades. GMMG isn’t filling our need for a power forward with Garth Butcher. He’s filling this hole with a highly touted, high-skill, high-upside, nasty piece of work. It may not be conventional and it may not work out, but we’ve just seen a smart, prepared man make a deliberate, calculated decision. I’m excited.

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: +26 (from 26 votes)
      • akidd
        February 28, 2012

        often a huge danger in any fielde is when people fall in their systems and ignore what is actually happening. i think gillis’ love for advanced stats has blinded him. he wasn’t able to properly quantify things like winning, clutch, character, grooming and instinct. so he ignored them for his pretty numbers and his progressive formulas. that’s the danger. it’s a perfect example of how stats guys can be convinced to do something that horse-sense guys would never do. did advanced stats lead gillis down the garden path? could be.

        VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: -24 (from 24 votes)
        • zukuss
          February 28, 2012

          How does one properly quantify “clutch, character, grooming and instinct.?” These are not quantifiable things. What is “horse-sense?” Honestly, this sounds like something that Burke would say, and look where his horse-sense has gotten the Leafs.

          VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
          Rating: +14 (from 14 votes)
          • akidd
            February 28, 2012

            that’s what i mean you can’t quantify those things. which makes bean-counter guys uneasy. give them a corsi number though and they’re happy campers. rely too much on numbers and you lose your instinct and turn off your perception which must have happened to gillis. so he deferred to his staff. who just want anything to happen because it’s more exciting and involving for their them than no trades. it’s gillis’ job to rein those guys in and make the final wise decision. he didn’t do that. he gambled when he didn’t have to. uncharacteristic of him.

            VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
            Rating: -12 (from 12 votes)
            • Harrison Mooney
              February 29, 2012

              I’m not a hardcore proponent of advanced stats (I, like you, think they need to be contrasted with the eye test), but you’re flying off the handle a bit here, akidd. This comment is a whole lot of crazy. His staff made this deal just for giggles? Come on.

              VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
              Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)
              • akidd
                February 29, 2012

                i think you might not have enough belief in human incompetence, harrison. if it was just about having the best hockey team it would be different. unfortunately ,like in all walks of life, other things get in the way like ego, pride, boredom, ambition, etc. this move was a scout’s wet dream. competitive guys when given a chance to ‘make or break’ it are going to want to take their shot. if you’re a canuck scout and kassian pans out it is huge for your career. i can totally understand them convincing themselves that the risk is worth it.

                gillis on the other hand perplexes me. this is a high risk deal for the canucks. it’s only been 3/4 ‘s of a season but cody, with all achieved in junior and what he has shown this year, is about as sure of a bet as there is for a rookie. gilis gambled. why?

                It is unknown but from how gillis framed his initial comments and from media reports this was a team decision. and gillis had to accept his scout’s word on kassian without first-hand experience. i’m guessing they had a look at some advanced stats as well, for cody too.

                somehow i think gillis got mixed up and was blinded to what the whole city saw and mourns, that cody was a special player. what he had is across sports the most valuable of all commoditites. offensive creativity. that stuff is priceless. kassian has tools. it’s an entirely different category. but for scouts, tools are their daily bread.

                maybe there was huge pressure to trade him. maybe gillis and av bore some grudge and wanted him gone for pride reasons or didn’t want the hassle from the dad and friends. who knows? but i believe cody was just about recovered physically and that the next year he would blossom even more as that big, square, superman head of his continued to absorb info at big blue rates. his price woud have gone up and up. then if you have to trade him then you do for an equally proven and valuable commodity.

                or you modify your system. falling in love with one’s own system creates a fragile rigidity. sammy pahlsson on the 3rd line almost seems insecure in it’s obviousness. sure kesler scored 41 but he’s been groomed as a selke guy. is he really a scorer. maybe it would be wiser to expect instead from him 20 goals… from hardest minutes there are. maybe you look at the guy who’s been a scorer his whole life for your second line. a playmake who ctually makes his wingers better and scores too. you could still pick up mr. obvious from the blue jackets as reserve. and you’ve got lappy and manny who shut down pretty good. but that wasn’t their blueprint. neither av or gillis could fit cody in. it’s seeming like their shortcoming not cody’s.

                so, i think that gillis wasn’t quite sure. he hasn’t been much of a gambler so far and i think he just deferred responsiblity and let scouts and development and their logic and numbers and zeal for a homer win out,( mixed of course with his own billy beane fantasies .) i think we needed a philosopher-king on this one–”i’m very tempted by your proposition gentlemen but the squared-headed one stays. his time is just beginning. if this kassian one is who we need later we will get him later when he has ripened more. if he is what we need now then i will make a different package. dismissed.”

                but maybe they did hit a home run. we’ll see how she goes in rainville. i hope they did but i also hope that coho goes on to a great career.

                and with that i am spent. good night.

                VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
                Rating: -3 (from 11 votes)
              • Daniel Wagner
                February 29, 2012

                It appears that the basis of your argument, akidd, is that Gillis was more blinded by advanced stats than Canucks fans are blinded by homerism. I dispute that premise.

                VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
                Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)
            • Steven Ray Orr
              February 29, 2012

              Why was keeping CoHo any less of a gamble than trading him? We are not talking about Kesler or Burrows, players that have shown talent year after year. We’re talking about a rookie in the middle of his first season wherein he had one spectacular month. GMMG had absolutely no way of knowing that CoHo could consistently play well — in fact, he had evidence to the contrary: every other month that CoHo played.

              I love CoHo and I am going to miss him on our roster, but Gillis has shown that he has a bright staff in front of him, fantastic instincts, and a knack for finding under-performing or under-developed players that can thrive within our system. Why don’t we give it more than 24 hours before we declare the move to be a failure?

              VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
              Rating: +14 (from 14 votes)
        • John in Marpole
          February 29, 2012

          So, by trading away Hodgson, Gillis traded away all of the Canucks supply of “winning, clutch, character, grooming and instinct”?

          Really? Hardly likely, and as I said previously, if the difference between success and failure for the Vcanucks is Cody Hodgson, this team is in deep trouble.

          Rather than spend a lot of time dissecting your pessimism, let’s look at 2 of the factors you listed as a yardstick of the veracity of your statement:

          Seems to me most ‘clutch’ goals that have been scored the past 2 seasons were scored by the guy wearing #14, not #9.

          So ‘clutch’ ( which isn’t a player specific attribute, it is purely situational) was embodied in Alex Burrows before Hodgson cracked the lineup, and remains on the roster today.

          “Character’ has long been an attribute of the Canucks as an organization. It didn’t arrive with the 9th pick of the 2008 draft, and it didn’t leave on a plane to Buffalo this past Monday.

          VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
          Rating: +9 (from 9 votes)
  12. akidd
    February 28, 2012

    pro: (from half a slow game)kassian looks like a way better skater than bernier or pyatt.

    con: not only do you lose cody’s offense but you lose all the third line’s offense(hansen and higgins) too. neither paulson, lapierre, nor malhotra are playmakers(far from it) and i don’t see the wingers scoring much without a bit of service. that leaves kesler, booth and raymond to make it up. yup, more pressure on raymond and booth to score. a little far-fetched to think those guys will do it. half the forwards in a purely defensive role seems a bit lopsided.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: -2 (from 10 votes)
  13. Abby
    February 28, 2012

    Ha. First paragraph was spot on. I found out from a stinkin’ newspaper cover this morning and walked around like a zombie for the next couple of hours. We traded CoHo for stinkin Zach Kassian? :P

    Now, after watching tonights game and seeing how Kassian seemed to fit right in with the team and create some offense, my emotions are cooling.

    Just slightly.

    All the best, Cody. I’ll be cheering for you wherever you end up playing, (just stay away from Chi. and Bos.)

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)
  14. Rituro
    February 28, 2012

    Wait, “clutch” is a myth? So what am I supposed to do with PITB’s characterization of Burrows as “unnaturally clutch”?

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)
    • akidd
      February 28, 2012

      ‘clutch’ is no myth. it refers to guys who are more competitive than other guys and bear down more when it counts the most because they want it more. to say that there’s no ‘clutch’ in sports is quite the statement.

      VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: -5 (from 9 votes)
      • Steven Ray Orr
        February 28, 2012

        Number of times Burrows has been “clutch” in situations where the team needed it < Number of times Burrows has *not* been "clutch" in situations where the time needed it.

        Replace Burrows with Hodgson or any other player in the NHL and it remains the same.

        So, sure. We can say the clutch is a thing that exists in sports and can actually be measured. Unfortunately, with a large enough sample size, every clutch stat will be infinitely close to zero percent.

        VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
        Rating: +3 (from 7 votes)
  15. TheWellwoods
    February 28, 2012

    Pro: I saw Kassian backcheck tonight.
    Con: That front tooth.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +13 (from 13 votes)
  16. peanutflower
    February 28, 2012

    PRO: Considering Kassian probably arrived in the afternoon from Buffalo he looked pretty good out there.
    CON: That front tooth and an obviously anxiously fidgety demeanor on the bench. Wouldn’t wanna be ya.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)
  17. Phileo99
    February 28, 2012

    The only thing more painfully worse than lamenting the loss of CoHo is watching Booth’s minutes get sacrificed just to watch Mason Raymond fall all over the ice (including his shootout attempt). It’s like AV handed him an unlimited supply of diplomatic immunity passes.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)
  18. Josh D.
    February 29, 2012

    Con: The number of CDC’ers who believe that we could have gotten grit for Raymond, Ballard and a first instead of CoHo continues to grow.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)
  19. bergberg
    February 29, 2012

    Somehow it seems very fitting that Cody Hodgson’s departure from Vancouver is wrapped in such controversy.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +6 (from 6 votes)
  20. canucks in europe
    February 29, 2012

    Everyone keeps talking about how “unproven” Kassian is and how he’s a great AHL player but not NHL calibre. The kid is 21 years old and has huge potential. Plus look at the players the Canucks have been able to develop and are currently developing in their AHL system. Let’s have a little faith that we are getting Kassian at a prime age for molding and shaping. Heck even CoHo bounced up and down in the system in order to get to where he is today. I realize that doesn’t solve an immediate problem for this year’s cup run but whose to say he would have been the answer this year?

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)
  21. canucks in europe
    February 29, 2012

    Sorry…last line should’ve read “whose to say CoHo would have been the answer this year?”

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)
  22. jimjam22
    February 29, 2012

    I agree in large part, but I question the angle on “soft minutes”. Isn’t it a strategic advantage for a team to have a third line that can dominate the other teams third line? Especially in the playoffs? Now we have a third line shutdown center (code for “he can’t score if his life depends on it, so he darn well better shut down the other guy”) and have gone from a three line scoring team to a two line team like last year. I liked the look of Kassian last night but can’t help feeling we have strategically shot ourselves in the foot on this one, at least until Kassian does develop into a scoring threat in his own right, which is not likely to happen this year. I just hope they have done the calculus on this one correctly.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
    • Daniel Wagner
      February 29, 2012

      It would be wonderful to have a third line that can dominate the other team’s third line. Cody’s line didn’t.

      VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
      Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)
  23. Raftgeek
    February 29, 2012

    Is it just me or do the people that read and post on PITB seem smarter then the average fans reading and posting on articles written by other Canuck sports writers? My vote is they are, even the “crazies” seem less crazy.

    VA:F [1.9.16_1159]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)