Confirmed with Link: Canucks re-sign F Anton Rodin (1-Year, 1-Way - $700K) (on waivers, clears, assigned to Utica)

ProstheticConscience

Check dein Limit
Apr 30, 2010
18,459
10,107
Canuck Nation
Um, you know how old he is right? To state he was doing incredible us a stretch. He was a very late bloomer.
Well, he's 26, 27 in November and he missed an entire season due to injury after winning the MVP of the SEL the year before.

I recall one or two other players around here in the 25-26 year-old range that certain people seem to think have greater heights in store for them, why not Rodin?
 

Pump n Dump

Registered User
Sep 2, 2009
474
62
North Vancouver, BC
. Rather they did the mistake with enough information or made what they thought was the best decision with the information in hand really doesn't matter too much in terms of the outcome. The result was its the wrong decision (even if its unintentionally). That isn't to say management won't make mistakes because everyone makes mistakes. The difference is good management will make fewer mistakes than bad management... after all that's pretty much the definition of management..best .

What you are defining is bad luck, not bad management. Your thesis that management is evaluated purely on outcome is nonsense and, even if it were so, it isn't clear that the outcome in this case was worse than the alternative. You have no way of showing that the team would have been better off if Rodin had the second surgery earlier because he has yet to make the NHL club.
 

RobertKron

Registered User
Sep 1, 2007
15,515
8,651
Um, you know how old he is right? To state he was doing incredible us a stretch. He was a very late bloomer.

No he wasn't. He was very much on track before being derailed by injuries, coming back from that, winning SEL MVP at 24, and then being derailed by injuries again. That he's even in the conversation as a possible NHL player after all of this is basically proof that he wasn't a "wasted pick."
 

rune74

Registered User
Oct 10, 2008
9,228
552
No he wasn't. He was very much on track before being derailed by injuries, coming back from that, winning SEL MVP at 24, and then being derailed by injuries again. That he's even in the conversation as a possible NHL player after all of this is basically proof that he wasn't a "wasted pick."

At 24 on track would not include playing in another league.
 

RobertKron

Registered User
Sep 1, 2007
15,515
8,651
At 24 on track would not include playing in another league.

Being the best player in the ~third best league in the world after being a solid prospect who lost a couple years to injuries in their very early twenties is about as on track as you can be given the circumstances.

Which is also not even what I said unless you're having trouble with the reading stuff.
 

rune74

Registered User
Oct 10, 2008
9,228
552
Well, he's 26, 27 in November and he missed an entire season due to injury after winning the MVP of the SEL the year before.

I recall one or two other players around here in the 25-26 year-old range that certain people seem to think have greater heights in store for them, why not Rodin?

You do know old virtanen is right? ;)

I haven't given up on Rodin at all....just think he is getting close to not being anything for us. I was happy he cleared here, but what he has shown in the preseason wasn't enough to gift him a spot.
 

iceburg

Don't ask why
Aug 31, 2003
7,643
4,017
I have always been pretty high on Rodin. I liked the pick at the time and was disappointed when he didn't really make it in the AHL the first time. But the guy dominated the SEL and showed really well last pre-season. He seems to be one of those guys who has good skill but can't quite get in to the head space to push for a regular NHL spot. At this point I think he will go down to the AHL and show he's a first call-up. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's yet another false start. Flip of a coin.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,721
5,957
A lot of people were angry that Rodin was picked before Tatar. That anger has disappeared completely or archived away.
 

timw33

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 18, 2007
25,760
19,603
Victoria
A lot of people were angry that Rodin was picked before Tatar. That anger has disappeared completely or archived away.

It's kind of on the backburner like the Mallet/Severson anger. Most likely because Detroit and NJD have been bad teams the last few years so we don't really care as much.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,721
5,957
What you are defining is bad luck, not bad management. Your thesis that management is evaluated purely on outcome is nonsense and, even if it were so, it isn't clear that the outcome in this case was worse than the alternative. You have no way of showing that the team would have been better off if Rodin had the second surgery earlier because he has yet to make the NHL club.

Ya exactly. And Rodin's situation was just unfortunate. There's no evidence that he was misinformed or tricked by Canucks management to choose rehab over surgery. He knew what the situation was and if he did feel like the Canucks management had somehow deceived or incompetent in how the handled his injury situation then he shouldn't have re-signed.
 

biturbo19

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
25,769
10,822
Given what we saw in preseason, this is probably the best scenario for him and the team anyway. Maybe some time down in Utica to get his game back in order will help, but i'm not going to hold my breath. He's missed so much time, and he's not exactly young anymore. A forward who hasn't found any NHL footing by 26, going on 27 years of age...derailed by injury or not, that's exceptionally long odds of success.

Hopefully he can at least help chip in some offense down in Utica and maybe offer a call-up option if things go extremely well down there. Funny though how much leeway he has seemed to get from certain posters, when there appears endless whinging about how so many other players "are who they are" and can be written off by 24 or earlier. o_O
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ryan Miller*

ProstheticConscience

Check dein Limit
Apr 30, 2010
18,459
10,107
Canuck Nation
A lot of people were angry that Rodin was picked before Tatar. That anger has disappeared completely or archived away.
It's been overlooked because we've had to focus on all the newer, dumber, more destructive draft failures of the present regime.

*edit* And looking back, 2009 was pretty much a crap draft all around.
 
Last edited:

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,721
5,957
*edit* And looking back, 2009 was pretty much a crap draft all around.

Disagree. You got two elite franchise guys in the top 2, some star players in the top 10. Some good NHL players sprinkled throughout the first round, a relatively good 2nd round and some good players to be had in the 3rd and 4th round as well. 2009 was a real solid draft looking back.
 

denkiteki

Registered User
Jun 29, 2010
3,767
6
Disagree. You got two elite franchise guys in the top 2, some star players in the top 10. Some good NHL players sprinkled throughout the first round, a relatively good 2nd round and some good players to be had in the 3rd and 4th round as well. 2009 was a real solid draft looking back.

You also have Scott Glennie (8), Jared Cowen (9), Paajarvi-Svensson (10).

Top 10 vs end of 2nd round? There are a few players that we could've picked instead of Rodin who could've helped but not actually that many

There was Tatar (60) and Bareeie (64) who would've been better 2nd round picks (before our 3rd round pick). There are a few other NHLers who are in bottom 6/pairing roles who i guess you could argue could be better assets than Rodin.

The draft after the 2nd round really only resulted in a handful of NHL regulars. Setting the bar @ 200GP

3rd round produced 5
4th round produced 6
5th round produced 3
6th round produced 1
7th round produced 2

That's 17... 3 more if you want to add those in the 2nd round drafted after Rodin so 'nucks missed out on 20 possible NHLers (not exactly a lot). Also in the case of Pirri (1 of the 3), i think he just got cut so he's a UFA. About half the teams did not manage to get any regulars with picks after the 2nd round/Rodin too.

Also if you're wondering, the Pens had 7 picks (2 5th, no 7th) and only Despres (1st round) is worth mentioning (29 games for their 2nd/3rd round picks, 0 for rest). So that was wasn't a good draft for most teams unless you're Nashville.
 

Pip

Registered User
Feb 2, 2012
69,190
8,518
Granduland
Would have been good IF.... I stopped reading there.

Jason king would have been a good NHL player IF he was a good NHL player

Derek Dorsett would be good at fighting IF he was good at fighting.

My grandpa would be my grandma IF he didn’t have male parts.

See where I am going here?

That IF makes all the difference.
The big difference (that I’m sure you’re aware of and are just being deliberately obtuse) is that Dorsett and King are/were crap players. Them at their best was a marginal or worthless asset to a hockey club. Rodin, on the other hand, has shown that he does have the skill level to possibly be a positive asset to this team. Whether he realizes his potential is anyone’s guess, and it would put it as unlikely given his career to date, but he does still clearly have a shot of being a decent player.
 

Ryan Miller*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2017
1,079
322
I'll give you a hint: they weren't Gillis acquisitions, and neither has scored 20 goals in a season with top six minutes.
Still no idea who these forwards are in the 25-26 age range.

Were you doing that thing where you add a year or two to the age of players because they'll be that age in [month]? And cause you want to make them look older than they are for the sake of your argument?

Like how Vanek and Jagr are the same age ("old"), Granlund is 26 and 23-year old Gaunce has upside while 21-year old Goldobin is a bust...
 

ProstheticConscience

Check dein Limit
Apr 30, 2010
18,459
10,107
Canuck Nation
Still no idea who these forwards are in the 25-26 age range.

Were you doing that thing where you add a year or two to the age of players because they'll be that age in [month]? And cause you want to make them look older than they are for the sake of your argument?

Like how Vanek and Jagr are the same age ("old"), Granlund is 26 and 23-year old Gaunce has upside while 21-year old Goldobin is a bust...

My bad. Baertschi's 25 in three days. Thought he was a year older for some reason.

And what's the rest of your post supposed to be about? Vanek and Jagr are the same age, Gaunce...Goldobin...the hell?
 

Ryan Miller*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2017
1,079
322
My bad. Baertschi's 25 in three days. Thought he was a year older for some reason.
You said forwards, so was there someone else you were also wrong about?
And what's the rest of your post supposed to be about? Vanek and Jagr are the same age, Gaunce...Goldobin...the hell?
Just a collection of unusual arguments about age that I've noticed.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,721
5,957
You also have Scott Glennie (8), Jared Cowen (9), Paajarvi-Svensson (10).

So what? It doesn't mean it wasn't a real solid draft. By most measures (top end quality, depth, mid and late round gems) 2009 was a real solid draft. It certainly should be considered better than 2010, 2011, and 2012.

There are a few players that we could've picked instead of Rodin who could've helped but not actually that many

There was Tatar (60) and Bareeie (64) who would've been better 2nd round picks (before our 3rd round pick). There are a few other NHLers who are in bottom 6/pairing roles who i guess you could argue could be better assets than Rodin.

But you're missing the point. My point was that right after the pick there were many fans who were angry because they felt Tatar was a similar player who was the better pick and higher ranked. In hindsight, those fans were right. If the Canucks were to choose a Dman, I think Orlov was the highest ranked at the time. At the end of the day, Rodin has contributed essentially nothing to the Canucks organization. Now that might change, but that fact remains.

The draft after the 2nd round really only resulted in a handful of NHL regulars. Setting the bar @ 200GP

3rd round produced 5
4th round produced 6
5th round produced 3
6th round produced 1
7th round produced 2

3rd round included Tyson Barrie, Reilly Smith, and Cody Eakin. Not bad at all.

4th round included Ekholm and Vatanen (these are higher end top 4 guys).

5th round included Hoffman. 7th round you have Haula.
 

denkiteki

Registered User
Jun 29, 2010
3,767
6
So what? It doesn't mean it wasn't a real solid draft. By most measures (top end quality, depth, mid and late round gems) 2009 was a real solid draft. It certainly should be considered better than 2010, 2011, and 2012.



But you're missing the point. My point was that right after the pick there were many fans who were angry because they felt Tatar was a similar player who was the better pick and higher ranked. In hindsight, those fans were right. If the Canucks were to choose a Dman, I think Orlov was the highest ranked at the time. At the end of the day, Rodin has contributed essentially nothing to the Canucks organization. Now that might change, but that fact remains.



3rd round included Tyson Barrie, Reilly Smith, and Cody Eakin. Not bad at all.

4th round included Ekholm and Vatanen (these are higher end top 4 guys).

5th round included Hoffman. 7th round you have Haula.

I think you're missing the point. In terms of comparing to other drafts, that's one of the weakest. Yes there is Tavares, Hedman, Duchene at the top and some decent players in the middle but late rounds, i listed the numbers. Its really not many after the 2nd round (as in less than 1 per team who have played regularly in the NHL... aka 200 game bar).

Late first isn't meaningful to Rodin discussion because he's a late second round pick. Again 20 players drafted after Rodin who are NHLers. Also its not far to even consider all those because we did have a 3rd round pick so really the meaningful players are those that were drafted between Rodin and Kconn (since those after Connaton, you could argue we should've used that pick for).

That means the list of meaningful comparison really is: Orlov, Pirri, Tatar, Barrie, and McNabb. Anyone else either a) were gone before Rodin's pick or b) could've been picked 83rd overall.

During the pick, i was hoping for Tatar, in hindsight, the best pick probably would be Barrie. Rodin hasn't done anything but guess what? in that range (53-83), there are 9 players who have not played a single NHL game (Rodin played 3). There's 3 more that only played one and 1 who played 2. That means basically half the picks contribute just as little as Rodin (aka nothing). If you set the bar at 40 games, only 10 players drafted between 53-83 played more than 40 games. So basically half the picks contribute little/nothing (or less than Rodin could if he comes up and does something this season). Also note that 7 players draft ahead of Rodin has not played a single game (including Paradis who was a 1st round pick).

I'm not saying the pick was a good pick but its not like we're the only team that missed their pick. At least 20 other teams missed their 2nd-3rd round pick around that spot in the very same draft.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
So what? It doesn't mean it wasn't a real solid draft. By most measures (top end quality, depth, mid and late round gems) 2009 was a real solid draft. It certainly should be considered better than 2010, 2011, and 2012.



But you're missing the point. My point was that right after the pick there were many fans who were angry because they felt Tatar was a similar player who was the better pick and higher ranked. In hindsight, those fans were right. If the Canucks were to choose a Dman, I think Orlov was the highest ranked at the time. At the end of the day, Rodin has contributed essentially nothing to the Canucks organization. Now that might change, but that fact remains.

It is a fact that is not worth pointing out though. Who really cares and what was your point in bringing it up?
 

StrictlyCommercial

Registered User
Oct 28, 2006
8,473
999
Vancouver
So what? It doesn't mean it wasn't a real solid draft. By most measures (top end quality, depth, mid and late round gems) 2009 was a real solid draft. It certainly should be considered better than 2010, 2011, and 2012.



But you're missing the point. My point was that right after the pick there were many fans who were angry because they felt Tatar was a similar player who was the better pick and higher ranked. In hindsight, those fans were right. If the Canucks were to choose a Dman, I think Orlov was the highest ranked at the time. At the end of the day, Rodin has contributed essentially nothing to the Canucks organization. Now that might change, but that fact remains.



3rd round included Tyson Barrie, Reilly Smith, and Cody Eakin. Not bad at all.

4th round included Ekholm and Vatanen (these are higher end top 4 guys).

5th round included Hoffman. 7th round you have Haula.

2007 was one of the worst drafts in recent history, and there were 17 players that got more than 200 games from rounds 3-7. Same as the draft you're trying to pump up. Guess we should count it as a real solid draft as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: denkiteki

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad