Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Kack Zassian

[Discussion] Is Hansen Our Most Expendable Asset?

129 posts in this topic

love hansen but i agree with the op. he is our best "luchbox" type guy and it was my opinion in a previous thread that he was indeed, the canucks unsung hero. the guy plays his heart out and gets dirty. now, i dont mean dirty like dirty hits & and all, i mean dirty areas without (seemingly) the least bit of hesitation. i love the honey badger but if packaged correctly he is, IMO, our most desirable...moveable asset.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raymond is.....although it'd be a stretch to call his an 'asset' in the truest sense of the word. I call him an asset like I would call a rundown piece of property that doesn't really do anything but cost money to upkeep, on a tax filing, as an asset.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone wants to offer us something really good for Hansen... Then yes, he is more expendable then most of our other assets.

Without knocking our socks off, I don't see us moving the Honey Badger.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, I think Luongo is the most expendable asset at the moment.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Hansen is on the third line, he is able to make that line work. He's a spark plug that can do anything. When he's not scoring, he's annoying, and can play a shut down role. He's hard to play against. He's one of those guys you expect to breakout during the playoffs. Plus, people still see more upside in him.

When you see Raymond, you never expect him to do anything. If he gets the puck, he speeds his way until the blue line, takes a weak shot and he's done. In the playoffs, he is man handled one on one.

A bit more similar to Hansen is Higgins. Higgins and Hansen both have fire in their tanks to make something happen, but it's best to have these guys all over our lineup to make a well balanced attack.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather trade Raymond or Higgins than Hansen.

Right now the sky's the limit for Hansen, who improves every single year and is on the cusp of a 20 goal season. Meanwhile there's not much chance Raymond will improve on his 50 point season a while ago, and Higgins hit his prime a long time ago despite still producing at a 20-goal pace.

Hansen was the best defensive forward on our team last season as well. He managed a +18 despite playing on the 3rd line which rarely scores and is usually the most victimized line (playing with the 3rd pairing, playing more time than the 4th line). Only Burrows and the twins bested him in the +/- department and they're racking up goals.

Hansen is NOT expendable. You can't just trade your best defensive forward, solid PKer and future top-6 forward because we have no one to replace him.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hansen is the type of player that would be more valueable to us than to any other team.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raymond is.....although it'd be a stretch to call his an 'asset' in the truest sense of the word. I call him an asset like I would call a rundown piece of property that doesn't really do anything but cost money to upkeep, on a tax filing, as an asset.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If It's true that Vancouver is talking to Florida. I would love it for the Canucks to somehow find a way to get Marcel Goc in the deal. Perfect 3rd liner center. I've been wanting him since his days in San Jose. If we get a guy like that in return, it would make Hansen moving a bit easier, though Goc and Hansen would make a deadly 3rd line. Still annoyed that the Canucks signed Malholtra over Goc, especially when Goc was less than a million dollars.

It's these type of guys, who can play in every situation that step up in the playoffs. Goc put up 5 points in 7 games for Florida during the playoffs. All hard work and determination.

These guys are worth a hell lot more on their teams then being moved.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends on the available return. (After all, no player is indispensable, even the Great One was dealt for the right return, and I don't see the Great Dane as an exception).

*No, I did not compare Jannik to the Great One.

Sure, trade Hansen in a package iff (If and ONLY if) the return would be a Top-6 winger (which Hansen came close to becoming statistically with Cody last season, at 0.48 P.P.G.) or if Hansen himself doesn't continue to improve so that he scores at a Top-6 pace.

However, as a play maker, he could reach that 1/2 point/ game mark with guys like Kes and Burr, plus with the similar style they play (and past chemistry and success) that line could not only be a strong scoring line but also an energetic/ shutdown line.

In other words, I'd like to see how he would do on the 2nd line with a bigger scoring role before trading him. Sure, the return could be great (the scoring winger really helps), and Raymond COULD become a strong 3rd line winger again (doubtful IMO, he's just not strong enough) but at the end of the day I'd rather keep someone who provides other important ingredients (energy, strong defensive play, decent scoring and play making ability) than just trade him off at the height of his value, as even after his value comes back down (from other teams' perspectives) he could still be a very valuable unsung hero for the team along with Higgins.

Last but not least, our most expendable asset HAS to be one of our goalies (don't want to push Lu out the door, after all until he's traded he's still on the team). It doesn't make sense to have two goalies take up $9M+ in salary.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is, but the return would have to be great to make it happen.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.