ESQ wrote:I'm actually in agreement with Rummy. I don't understand how people can argue that trading Hodgson was better for the TEAM on the ice for the past season-and-a-half.
Whatever Hodgson might have brought was replaceable
(replaceable with centres on the team, or centres acquirable at the deadline with 2nd round picks/B-prospects).
Meanwhile The Kassian slowly develops...
ESQ wrote:What kills me about the argument that Hodgson would have been no good in the playoffs is that there is no evidence to support it.
No not much except for...
Evidence: Hodgson has 1 assist in 12 career NHL playoff games.
Evidence: Hodgson's production slipped in AHL playoff games.
Evidence: Our eyes tell us that when the going gets tough, Hodgson does NOT get going.
Do you have any "evidence" to the contrary?
ESQ wrote:Hodgson was the 3rd line center, he was deliberately given sheltered minutes, he played a lot on the PP and put up quite a lot of points. I would argue that the TEAM performance was better having Hodgson in that limited role than in having Kassian and Pahlsson, because scoring immediately became a problem and the powerplay suffered enormously since the trade.
Hodgson played on the #2 PP unit.
How would him leaving contribute to the fact the #1 PP became a problem.
BTW Hodgson had ZERO
power-play points in his last 17 games as a Canuck.
Now when Daniel got injured (9 games after the trade) THAT hurt the PP
(it wasn't until Daniel returned for those last 2 playoff games that the PP returned to form).
ESQ wrote:What he provided in 6 minutes ES and 4 minutes PP is something...
ESQ wrote:In summary, 2012 Hodgson > Kassian + Pahlsson
Well your summary is wrong due to the fact your facts above are wrong.
ESQ wrote:, 2013 Hodsgon > Kassian + Roy.
Now, that's just silly....