• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Leaf Rumours

Yeah, but high hockey IQ tends to be the difference between "bad skaters" going to europe, and "bad skaters" making it in the NHL.

A bunch of skill doesn't hurt either.
 
IrishWolfman said:
Dozens of players produce at elite levels all over the CHL every year.
Click to expand...

yes, but for the most part those are players who are either turning 20 or playing as overagers.

just look at ohl players who produced comparably to hodgson last season -- tavares (1st overall pick/arguably elite prospect), chris terry (19 y/o), justin dibendetto (o/a), matt caria (o/a), taylor hall (elite prospect), ryan ellis, eric tangradi (19 y/o).

hodgson's production when considered with his age is very, very impressive. you have to contextualize that. there just aren't a lot of prospects hodgson's age who have produced the way hodgson scored last season.

Hell, Brandon Kozun outperformed Cody Hodgson last year. You can't judge a player on production.
Click to expand...

no he didn't. he had more points than hodgson, sure, but he played in 19 more games.

if you normalize (using 82 games since it's a pretty common measure, at least around these parts) hodgson scored at a 142 point pace; kozun at a 123 point pace. hodgson had a marked advantage.

First, you can't compare players absent of context. Hodgson played on a Brampton team that included Evgeny Grachev and Matt Duchene whom he saw powerplay time with.
Click to expand...

yep, he got to play with some good players. likewise, grachev and duchene got to play with hodgson. and he outproduced both by a healthy margin. there is no doubt that playing with good players helps -- but it is absurd to argue that a player only produced at a given level because he had the benefit of getting some ice time with a player he outproduced by 13 points (in 4 less games) and a player he outproduced by 12 points (in 7 fewer games).

Evaluating a prospect's potential means assessing how their particular skillset will work at the pro level. That Hodgson's a smart hockey player is good, that he's a slow one is bad. That he's small (5'11" is small when playing against the Prongers, Webers and Phaneufs of the league) and slow is unquestionably going to limit his ability to be effective, particularly as a centre.
Click to expand...

i don't need to be told how prospects need to evaluated so spare me the lecture.

for the third or fourth time i have never denied that there are questions surrounding hodgson. he clearly has some shortcomings that could prevent him from fulfilling his offensive potential. i have never called him a guaranteed first line, point per game scorer.

of course, if he did succeed and fulfill that potential he wouldn't be the first smallish centre with questionable foot speed to become a point per game first line centre (brad richards, anyone?)
 
leafman101 said:
Yeah, but high hockey IQ tends to be the difference between "bad skaters" going to europe, and "bad skaters" making it in the NHL.
Click to expand...

No, the ability to slow the game down to their level is the difference. Hockey sense is a part of that but so are a bunch of other factors. We're also forgetting the rather huge elephant in the room again. Cody Hodgson has a rather severe back problem that he now has to contend with. One that typically gets exacerbated by intense physical strain like say, an 82 game NHL schedule including all the travel that comes with playing in the Western Conference. So, now you're talking about a slow, small-side player who can't take physicality, how many of those guys are NHLers?
 
Last edited:
no argument from me -- the back injury is a huge concern.

a much, much bigger concern than his shortcomings as a hockey player.
 
msun30 said:
yes, but for the most part those are players who are either turning 20 or playing as overagers.

just look at ohl players who produced comparably to hodgson last season -- tavares (1st overall pick/arguably elite prospect), chris terry (19 y/o), justin dibendetto (o/a), matt caria (o/a), taylor hall (elite prospect), ryan ellis, eric tangradi (19 y/o).

hodgson's production when considered with his age is very, very impressive. you have to contextualize that. there just aren't a lot of prospects hodgson's age who have produced the way hodgson scored last season.



no he didn't. he had more points than hodgson, sure, but he played in 19 more games.

if you normalize (using 82 games since it's a pretty common measure, at least around these parts) hodgson scored at a 142 point pace; kozun at a 123 point pace. hodgson had a marked advantage.



yep, he got to play with some good players. likewise, grachev and duchene got to play with hodgson. and he outproduced both by a healthy margin. there is no doubt that playing with good players helps -- but it is absurd to argue that a player only produced at a given level because he had the benefit of getting some ice time with a player he outproduced by 13 points (in 4 less games) and a player he outproduced by 12 points (in 7 fewer games).



i don't need to be told how prospects need to evaluated so spare me the lecture.

for the third or fourth time i have never denied that there are questions surrounding hodgson. he clearly has some shortcomings that could prevent him from fulfilling his offensive potential. i have never called him a guaranteed first line, point per game scorer.

of course, if he did succeed and fulfill that potential he wouldn't be the first smallish centre with questionable foot speed to become a point per game first line centre (brad richards, anyone?)
Click to expand...

Since you're fond of this argument, I'll make it here. He outproduced Matt Duchene who was playing as a 17 y/o, he also produced an eighteen y/o playing in his first year in North America (yes, that makes a huge difference). Duchene is leading the Calder race this year, and there isn't a scout alive who would put Hodgson as the better prospect of the two. While it helps to have talent, you're right, Hodgson was the one riding shotgun here.

As for the Brad Richards example. There's a reason his was called the worst contract in hockey since 2006-2007 until this year (he's having a good season). Its because he was losing puck battles, he was losing races, he couldn't slow the game down. He was a 65 point player. Which isn't bad, it makes him a second line centre. Which is pretty much where I'd put Hodgson. There are much better prospects than Hodgson who don't get half the billing, which is what I take issue with.
 
Hodgson wasn't riding shot gun. He was the focal part of that team. And to be honest, I think that held Duchene back. But you can't critisize him for playing with good players. Most players who put up big numbers in junior do.

And no one in their right mind ever said Hodgson was a better prospect than Duchene. Duchene has always been a much more highly thought of prospect.
 
Since you're fond of this argument, I'll make it here. He outproduced Matt Duchene who was playing as a 17 y/o, he also produced an eighteen y/o playing in his first year in North America (yes, that makes a huge difference). Duchene is leading the Calder race this year, and there isn't a scout alive who would put Hodgson as the better prospect of the two. While it helps to have talent, you're right, Hodgson was the one riding shotgun here.
Click to expand...

A big thumbs up for finally taking into account ages (which is basically the crux of why Hodgson's 08-09 was so damn impressive). Interesting that it only matters when it suits your argument.

As for who was riding shot gun -- it is absurd to argue that Hodgson was riding shotgun to a couple of guys who he outscored substantially. Like Leafman said, having Hodgson around probably held back Duchene, if anything. Especially since they both play the same position.

And I never said that Hodgson was a better or comparable prospect to Duchene.

As for the Brad Richards example. There's a reason his was called the worst contract in hockey since 2006-2007 until this year (he's having a good season). Its because he was losing puck battles, he was losing races, he couldn't slow the game down. He was a 65 point player. Which isn't bad, it makes him a second line centre. Which is pretty much where I'd put Hodgson. There are much better prospects than Hodgson who don't get half the billing, which is what I take issue with.
Click to expand...

Well, we can take the long winded route or the shorter one. I choose the latter.

Richards is a perfectly fine player and a quality (though not top) first line centre. The problem is that he is paid an elite player's salary and isn't an elite player. You can talk about losing puck battles and all that stuff but really that's just long-winded nonsense.

Brad Richards is said to have 'the worst contract in hockey' because he has, off the top of my head, the 4th largest cap hit in the league. Bigger than Thornton's. Bigger than Lecavalier's. Bigger than Iginla's.

Even when he was scoring 70-80 points... even when he had his 90 point season... he wasn't worthy of being one of the five hgihest paid players in hockey.

Has nothing to do with his size and lack of foot speed significantly hampering him.
 
leafman101 said:
Hodgson wasn't riding shot gun. He was the focal part of that team. And to be honest, I think that held Duchene back. But you can't critisize him for playing with good players. Most players who put up big numbers in junior do.

And no one in their right mind ever said Hodgson was a better prospect than Duchene. Duchene has always been a much more highly thought of prospect.
Click to expand...

Well, I disagree with the first point. I got to see Brampton a lot last year and I always came away far more impressed with Duchene then I did with Hodgson. And I'm not criticizing him for playing with good players. My favourite junior team ever is the 2002-03 Kitchener Rangers and they had ridiculous depth at centre Derek Roy on the first line, Mike Richards on the second and Greg Campbell on the third (but he usually played wing on one of the top two lines). That year Campbell was better than a point per game and he made the World Junior team.
But those things didn't make him a better prospect than scouts thought he was. He was never going to be a top six player in the NHL. He just played like one that year because he played for that junior team with Richards and Roy and Clarkson.
In major junior, mediocre players look really good in years when they've got a supporting cast. Good players look like great players and great players look like world beaters in those circumstances. Supporting cast is important in junior, you can never overstate it as a variable. It's not a knock on a player because they're playing with a good cast but it's a factor in production.
You want a good example of a prospect similar to Hodgson, injury concerns included?

Zach Hamill
Height: 5'11" - Weight: 180
Drafted: 7th Overall in 2007

2006-2007 (Playing with Peter Mueller)
69GP - 32G - 61A - 93PTS

2007-2008 (Mueller playing in Phoenix)
67GP - 26G - 49 - 75PTS

Hamill's profile is similar to Hodgson's. Some acceleration issues, great shot, strong hockey sense. Both of the above listed Junior seasons are success by any standard. No Mueller means Hamill sees more defensive coverage, no Mueller means no top tier help to finish plays. Supporting cast makes a difference, that's not a bad thing.
 
msun30 said:
he is a very comparable prospect to kadri. very, very comparable. they have nearly identical offensive upsides (although they are very different types of players). as mentioned their junior production has been identical..
Click to expand...

he really isn't.

Kadri doesn't have the holes in his skillset that Hodgson does, and as I mentioned, Kadri was well ahead of him production wise in his draft year, and looks to be flying by him in this post-draft year, even after his very slow start.
 
zeke said:
he really isn't.

Kadri doesn't have the holes in his skillset that Hodgson does, and as I mentioned, Kadri was well ahead of him production wise in his draft year, and looks to be flying by him in this post-draft year, even after his very slow start.
Click to expand...

in their pre draft years hodson scored at a 103 pt pace, kadri at a 114 pt pace, so yeah, an edge for kadri.

it might be worth noting that kadri was in his third year in the ohl and hodgson only in his second. mind you, that's something i'm interested in, while we're on the topic. what sort of impact does a late (post-sept) birthday have in terms of judging a prospect's potential based on major junior production? does the fact that kadri is technically one year older at their relative stages of development make it more difficult to compare them?

i've finally got a short-term employment situation figured out so i don't have the time to do that. feel free to take on the task, if you want.

as for their post draft year -- don't get that far ahead of yourself. kadri still hasn't caught hodson's ppg pace, let alone surpassed it (let alone 'flown by it.').
 
msun30 said:
in their pre draft years hodson scored at a 103 pt pace, kadri at a 114 pt pace, so yeah, an edge for kadri.

it might be worth noting that kadri was in his third year in the ohl and hodgson only in his second. mind you, that's something i'm interested in, while we're on the topic. what sort of impact does a late (post-sept) birthday have in terms of judging a prospect's potential based on major junior production? does the fact that kadri is technically one year older at their relative stages of development make it more difficult to compare them?

i've finally got a short-term employment situation figured out so i don't have the time to do that. feel free to take on the task, if you want.

as for their post draft year -- don't get that far ahead of yourself. kadri still hasn't caught hodson's ppg pace, let alone surpassed it (let alone 'flown by it.').
Click to expand...

I brought this up talking with Zeke in a different thread. But here's how player agent Rand Simon breaks down the late v. early birthday debate when evaluating prospects.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/30842-Rand-Simons-Blog-Canadas-age-system-must-be-fixed.html

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articl...-ageism-hurting-kids-chances-for-success.html
 
The Pittsburgh Penguins are looking at several options on the trade market, but as far as wingers go, they may be down to four finalists: Lee Stempniak, Alexei Ponikarovsky, Raffi Torres and Ray Whitney.

The Pens will likely pass on Whitney because of the high asking price -- a first-rounder and a prospect. So that leaves the other three, all of whom make between $2 and $2.5 million a season -- a low enough cap hit for the Pens to absorb.

As the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette points out, "With their current 22-man roster, the Penguins have about $1 million in salary-cap space, but cap hits are pro-rated and only about a quarter of the season remains."

So that's partly why no deal was struck before the Olympic deadline. But we also know they're looking at Dan Hamhuis, as well, so we'll see how busy the Pens get in the next few weeks.
 
The Leafs are one of the few teams that would take salary back to make a deal work, especially if the pens were willing to throw some additional picks our way.

I could see Burke taking Kunitz off of their hands for both Poni, Stemp and a few picks & prospects(1st, 3rd, Tangradi). That would free up the room they need for Hamhuis I think.
 
That'd be a pretty massive return for two UFAs.

Kunitz, 1st, 3rd, Tangradi for Poni and Stemp?

Can't believe that would ever come close to happening.
 
And no one in their right mind ever said Hodgson was a better prospect than Duchene. Duchene has always been a much more highly thought of prospect.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I've gotten into MANY debates about this with people, though I'd agree that they weren't "in their right mind" to have believed that. So many Vancouver fans believed he was a future 90 point center.

Well, I disagree with the first point. I got to see Brampton a lot last year and I always came away far more impressed with Duchene then I did with Hodgson.
Click to expand...

Same. Not only last year but Duchene's rookie year/Cody's draft year. He stole the show for sure.

And to clarify, Cody's injury is the only reason I wouldn't want him here.

Pasted from <http://www.forumice.com/showthread.php?t=35439&page=133>

Well, I disagree with the first point. I got to see Brampton a lot last year and I always came away far more impressed with Duchene then I did with Hodgson.

Pasted from <http://www.forumice.com/showthread.php?t=35439&page=133>
 
MindzEye said:
The Leafs are one of the few teams that would take salary back to make a deal work, especially if the pens were willing to throw some additional picks our way.

I could see Burke taking Kunitz off of their hands for both Poni, Stemp and a few picks & prospects(1st, 3rd, Tangradi). That would free up the room they need for Hamhuis I think.
Click to expand...

So you expect Kunitz a half decent (b level) prospect a 1st and a 3rd for Stemp and Poni??? Come on... Kunitz isn't a negative asset.
 
Last edited:
I agree that Kunitz is overpaid for the offense he brings, but he brings a bit more than just that. He plays a very physical game and hits everything that moves. He's probably worth about $3mil a year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top