mrsasaki Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 We've all seen Bieksa try to pull an http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVe486gUXqw, and, miserably fail. Hamhuis almost always makes the smart play, minus the last 5 seconds of the Canucks season. What if AV put Tanev with Hamhuis to make a very smart shutdown d-pair, and Bieksa with Edler to make more of an offensive pair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Jane Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Edler and Tanev will make a pretty good line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edlerberry Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 No. He's #3/4. Hamhuis is a legit #2 or 1 on many teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobopan Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Bieksa- Edler would make a terrible pairing in fact didn't we see that several times this season and it was a complete disaster...? Is Bieksa a top pairing d-man... im not so sure about that. I think he's be much better off on a 2nd pairing but on this team with whom we have i guess he is. Im a firm believer in pairing an offensive type guy with a stay at home player to cover his ass. The problem with this team too many times is guys trying to do more than their capable of doing (Bieksa may be one of the biggest culprates) and part of that is the coaching philosophy imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheels22 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Hamhuis made Bieksa 4.75 mill for 5 years EDIT : I suppose Bieksa did play well the entire 2010-11 season and playoffs. But still, last season he showed he isn't as dependable as he should be while on that 1st pairing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 I like Hamhuis-Bieksa as the 2nd pairing. We just need to find Edler a partner. Edler - ______ Hamhuis - Bieksa Ballard - Salo IMO, sign Garrison & Allen and trade Ballard for picks/prospects. Edler - Garrison Hamhuis - Bieksa Allen - Salo Extras: Tanev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjkaemingh Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 No. Too many brain farts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Karlsson Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButterBean Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 We should keep him with Hamhuis because that's when he's the most effective. Then we find Edler a reliable top 4 partner and we should hopefully be set. I hope AV decides to bring down Bieksa's ice-time this year. 20 minutes a night should be good and not much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durl Dixsun Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Yes he is. Maybe a bit over paid. I would settle for 3.75-4 for him, not 4.6 we need to trade Ballard and free up 4.2 for a right handed, right side d-man to play with Edler and maybe sign Garrison to 2.75 mil and play him on the 3rd paring Hamhuis/Bieksa Edler/______ Garrison/______ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanKeslord17 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 I like Hamhuis-Bieksa as the 2nd pairing. We just need to find Edler a partner. Edler - ______ Hamhuis - Bieksa Ballard - Salo IMO, sign Garrison & Allen and trade Ballard for picks/prospects. Edler - Garrison Hamhuis - Bieksa Allen - Salo Extras: Tanev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billabong Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 in a perfect world he would be a 2nd pairing d-man but when he is paired with such a steady d-man in hamhuis in makes life easier for bieksa so he can be put up against the other teams top players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 No. We should trade him and Burrows for Hedman. Is this 2009? TOML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 No and he shouldn't be paid more than Hamhuis he got you that contract !@#$% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micgao Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 No. Too many brain farts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samurai Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Kevin is a legit top 4 - so it doesn't matter if it is first pairing or second. When he is on his game he is very very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rypien37 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Is that even a question? On a contender a #4 AT BEST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-52 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 bieksa should be #3 dman imo, hamhuis is a #2, we still need a #1 imo. I wish edler and hamhuis played different sides, that would be a good pair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newsflash Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Whoa whoa whoa. What's with all the negativity? This isn't 2006. His contract is not that bad. The cap has gone up by A LOT, and do not expect him to be the highest paid D-man on the team when Edler has to re-sign his contract. His contract won't even be close. He doesn't dive, he fights, and maybe he isn't super reliable defensively but he is one of our proven playoff performers despite being shat on constantly by this city. Him and Hamhuis form a much better pairing then any two defenseman we have can muster. It doesn't matter how good you think he is, he's a top pairing d-man for that reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newsflash Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 bieksa should be #3 dman imo, hamhuis is a #2, we still need a #1 imo. I wish edler and hamhuis played different sides, that would be a good pair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.