Confirmed with Link: [VAN/TB] Jason Garrison, 7th in 2015, Jeff Costello for TB's 2nd (50th OA)

Verviticus

Registered User
Jul 23, 2010
12,664
592
i dont think hodgson wins that series for us, and if we came out of that series, we probably get to the finals regardless. i was against the trade back then and still wish he had tried to shop around during the off-season but, eh, it is what it is. and kassian has been better recently than id have expected
 

Pump n Dump

Registered User
Sep 2, 2009
474
62
North Vancouver, BC
All we know for sure is that Kassian was benched, I have no clue what would have happened if Hodgson had stayed. AV did a good job putting Hodgson in a position to put up points, I have no reason to believe that couldn't have continued.

Gillis had a clue about what would have happened. They couldn't continue to shelter Hodgson in the playoffs so they pulled the trigger. It was a wise move at the time and there is no reason to believe they would have been better off for not doing it.
 

mrmyheadhurts

Registered Boozer
Mar 22, 2007
16,089
1
Vancouver
Gillis had a clue about what would have happened. They couldn't continue to shelter Hodgson in the playoffs so they pulled the trigger. It was a wise move at the time and there is no reason to believe they would have been better off for not doing it.

Why exactly? With the acquisition of PÃ¥hlsson they could have sheltered him even more. Canucks had a hell of a time scoring that LA series, having a one shot finisher like Hodgson, even if he was just a PP specialist, would've been more advantageous than having Kassain doing absolutely nothing.

I disagree that it was a wise move, and all we know for sure is they were not better for it because Kassian was on the bench and in the press-box for the entire playoffs. A contending team in "win now" mode should be adding NHL calibre players, not trading them for projects.

Great off-season trade for a re-tooling team, terrible deadline trade for a contending team.
 

Wilch

Unregistered User
Mar 29, 2010
12,224
487
The issue for Hodgson was that he wanted more ice time (and thus not be sheltered).

The issue for the Canucks was that Hodgson was exposed for his defensive shortcomings when matched up against impact players (or even good 3rd liner at times).
 

Diamonddog01

Diamond in the rough
Jul 18, 2007
11,013
3,833
Vancouver
The issue for Hodgson was that he wanted more ice time (and thus not be sheltered).

The issue for the Canucks was that Hodgson was exposed for his defensive shortcomings when matched up against impact players (or even good 3rd liner at times).

That's not really being debated here. What's being argued is the timing of the trade.
 

windflare

Registered User
May 31, 2006
5,364
0
Vancouver, B.C.
Kelcey Brade@ctv_kelcey
Interesting...Garrison's days were numbered in VAN under old regime. Apparently Gillis & co. also identified JG as a movable asset. #Canucks

Kelcey Brade@ctv_kelcey
But Gillis was fired before we actually got the chance to see if he would've actually traded JG. He at least recognized the signing error.

Well then.
 

luongo321

Registered User
Apr 12, 2011
12,247
33
Well then.

Good. However, knowing Gillis, he'd probably try and hang on to him forever until he got the right deal which would end up with Gillis getting a horrendous offer and saying he had no choice but to do the trade.
 

VanillaCoke

Registered User
Oct 30, 2013
24,956
11,300
Good. However, knowing Gillis, he'd probably try and hang on to him forever until he got the right deal which would end up with Gillis getting a horrendous offer and saying he had no choice but to do the trade.

Probably still more than a 2nd round pick....
 

whoshouse

Registered User
Aug 13, 2004
1,124
71
Who is Kelcey Brade? And I wonder where this person gets their information from. Do not remember their name being brought up prior to Benning being here.
 

mossey3535

Registered User
Feb 7, 2011
13,218
9,645
That Garrison was traded over Edler isn't that surprising since both management groups seemed content to give him chance after chance. That wasn't going to change given Linden's relationship with him. Of course we are not going to move Hamhuis.

"Recognize him as a tradeable asset" and "he recognized him the signing error" are completely different things.

Again, it's not that we traded Garrison. It's that we showed such poor asset management while doing so. Again, he should have gotten 2-3 picks, and we shouldn't have had to include ANY assets with him.
 

whoshouse

Registered User
Aug 13, 2004
1,124
71
CTV Vancouver Sports reporter. Seems to have gotten in after Lindenning arrived.

Thanks.

How is anyone supposed to know whether this rumour was told to Kelcey Brade by someone in the Benning camp to make it look like Garrison was on the trade block regardless? This way the regular fan would just assume that Garrison had negative value when perhaps in actuality he had value but was a victim of being a cap causality.

One thing I find interesting is that a lot of posters on these boards take rumours as fact. In actuality, its important to try and decipher what the reason would be for someone to allow this rumour to get out to the public. Also, its important to analyze where the rumour is coming from.
 

windflare

Registered User
May 31, 2006
5,364
0
Vancouver, B.C.
Thanks.

How is anyone supposed to know whether this rumour was told to Kelcey Brade by someone in the Benning camp to make it look like Garrison was on the trade block regardless? This way the regular fan would just assume that Garrison had negative value when perhaps in actuality he had value but was a victim of being a cap causality.

One thing I find interesting is that a lot of posters on these boards take rumours as fact. In actuality, its important to try and decipher what the reason would be for someone to allow this rumour to get out to the public. Also, its important to analyze where the rumour is coming from.

Of course, one has to examine the source of information.

On the other hand, there's overthinking things. The perception of the Garrison trade is very different on HF compared to general public thought, and this guy did break quite a few things that were of no benefit for the Canucks to leak.

So make of it what you will.
 

Pip

Registered User
Feb 2, 2012
69,164
8,461
Granduland
Good. However, knowing Gillis, he'd probably try and hang on to him forever until he got the right deal which would end up with Gillis getting a horrendous offer and saying he had no choice but to do the trade.

The return we got for Garrison was horrendous, I don't see how it could have gotten any worse tbh
 

Cancuks

Former Exalted Ruler
Jan 13, 2014
3,853
3,220
At the EI office
We got Garrison for nothing but $. He doesn't fit our needs. We trade him for a pick and get rid of his salary. It's a great trade.
 

David71

Registered User
Dec 27, 2008
16,962
1,397
vancouver
so we can all say that garrison scoring 16 goals on the powerplay was a fluke. he was looking to cash in. gave a discount. didnt fit the nucks need one thing i don't understand is his body is built like a tank but he rarely cleared the crease like cross checking guys. guess you can blame the scouts for having another failure in their hands
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->