Archived

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

Dogbyte

We should consider trading Hansen

105 posts in this topic

1st line players: Henrik, Daniel.

2nd line players: None, imo.

3rd line players. Burrows ( Without the sedins, yes) Kesler ( Shutdown defensive forward, Not a 2nd liner imo) Hansen, Santorelli,

Kassian ( as of now ) etc.

Someone has probably said it already. We really dont have any 2nd line players. Those guys we think we can rely on, Kesler, Burrows. Without the sedins, arent 1st line players. And in reality, are kind of 3rd liners. Love these players, Want them on the team. But we need to consider building a team without a plethora of 3rd liners. Look how Chicagos built. They have Hossa Sharpe Toews and Kane between the top two lines. Were missing a lot of natural goal scoring skills that Kesler and Burrows just dont have.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I have thought for years now that one of biggest problems is that Gillis doesn't pencil payers into the lineup when he is designing the team.

...

O2wSx19394.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone will eventually be moved for room so younger guys can make it.

Question is Will it be this season? And will it be?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you want to trade Santorelli Or Hansen? Both are cheap, and especially in Santorelli's case, shows some bloody hockey intelligence when he has the puck. Paying plugs anything even if its cheap is stupid, but guys like this are anything but plugs. The nucks are handcuffed with these ntc's, and that's killing us. I'm not sure why our GM couldn't sign most of these guys to limited NTM'S. that way both parties have some wiggle room. Anyway, no use fuzzing over spilt milk! Burrows is my fav Canuck, so saying this kinda hurts but he's not worth 4.5 mil. Good 2-way player but at that money, you need players that you can count on to score at least every 2-3 games max. Hamhuis hasn't been the same since he ran into lucic in 2011 playoffs. Sucks because we need him at his best. We have 4 D in long-term ntc's that are good but not great. Tanev is trade bait because he's good and we actually can trade him, and we can't afford to put extra $ in our D guys with so many problems in our O right now

Unless something really good comes our way in a trade or waiver pick-up then perhaps it's best that we play it out this yr. I like most of u find this almost like torture because I want the cup so bad. I can't wait to find out what happens with the cap next yr. how much is it going up? Buyout booth, and insert our young guys in the line-up. Let kassian play. Let them all bloody well play; corrado, Schroeder, shinrakuk, horvat, gaunce, lain, welsh, cassels, sauve, etc. If they make mistakes...oh well! Let them learn and get experience

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt moving Hansen would fetch us what this team needs. I'm more open to moving Edler or Hammer. Even if I like having both here. But those are the kinda guys that can get us something we need in exchange.

If we're going to make a change to the current situation, then sacrifice needs to be made.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as your very opinionated and controvera

Yeah that was a horrible contract. We basically told everyone that we're paying you up for what you delivered in the past.

I would rather pay a player based on what he has done, opposed to what he has yet to do. Burrows was well under paid during his last contract, were people expecting to retain him 2 mill per? He deserved a raise, based on his play. Thats how contracts work.

Burrows may not be finding the back of the net yet (and it is simply a matter of time). The guy is simply snake bitten. 42 shots on net, in just 11 games. He is also one of the Canucks most versatile forwards, and a great 2 way player than can play up and down the lineup. Give him some time, he will find his game again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why have the people here think that the only players who should be traded are the ones playing poorly. This team needs a new identity, and you have to give up some of the players playing well to do that.

As for the prospects? Depending on who the deal would be for, none of them are untouchable. If it's a deal for a young guy, like Kane, no one should think twice about moving any of the prospects and/or picks.

Personally, my list of players I would dangle, regardless of NTC/NMC would be

Kesler - not a fan and he holds a lot of value. Any deal I'd make starts with Kesler, especially if he's not playing C.

Burrows - Love Burr, love his game, good contract.........other GM's will love him too

Edler - Lots of upside, pretty valuable chip. has holes that aren't apparent to those who don't watch him game in, game out

Bieksa - See Edler, and there seems to be a "mythology" about Bieksa across the league.

Hansen - I'd hate to see it, but he's got a lot of value as part of a deal.

Tanev - see Hansen, plus he's going to get seriously injured at some with the hits he takes every single game.

Stanton - has worked himself into a moderately valuable chip. It would be him or Tanev in a deal, imo.

Booth - someone might take a flyer on him, who knows. He's getting screwed over in Van I think.

Schroeder - still a prospect at this point, but might have add in value.

Shink - Only for a proven player under 24, unless its an older polayer with a good contract with consistent offense

Horvat - See Shink, but not for any player over 24

Gaunce, see Horvat. C's always have more value than W's.

Jensen - On the fence, but if a god young player came along and adding Jensen was a part, fine.

Corrado - could be a valuable add in, bbut last resort.

4th liners - self explanatory

Obviously thats not a list of players that should be traded, but I think a package of 2-3 of those players could net a good return and help change the identity and direction of the team. Losing one or two of the above could be absorbed, imo.

Guys I would not move

Sedins - not that I wouldn't, but there's no point even talking about it, it's never going to happen.

Luongo - see Sedins.

Kassian - he's going to be good and I see that more clearly now than before. MG would never swallow his pride either.

Hamhuis - regardless of what people here think, he's playing well now. Plus, he's a BC boy

Sante - BC boy, and I'm very impressed with him. Would be a good 2nd line C with the right wingers.

Higgins - Love Higgy and love his chemistry with Sante. Give them a scoring winger and they'll be tough to play against

Garrison - BC boy, more defensively reliable than Edler

Richardson - I like his game, solid two way C-man and really stabilizes the bottom 6.

anyway, I have no faith that MG will make a move, nor do I want him to make a foolish move, so this is all just rainbows and unicorns in the end.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. Too many Hansen like players on this team already. He's young enough to fetch something back decent. I'll take a one-dimensional player who can put the puck in the net. Our defense is not the problem, so a player that can pot 20-25 goals even if he doesnt muck in the corners or is suspect defensively would be an upgrade for this team over Hansen.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. Too many Hansen like players on this team already. He's young enough to fetch something back decent. I'll take a one-dimensional player who can put the puck in the net. Our defense is not the problem, so a player that can pot 20-25 goals even if he doesnt muck in the corners or is suspect defensively would be an upgrade for this team over Hansen.

A one-dimensional player like that better score 35-40, because the guy you described sounds dangerously close to Mason Raymond.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st line players: Henrik, Daniel.

2nd line players: None, imo.

3rd line players. Burrows ( Without the sedins, yes) Kesler ( Shutdown defensive forward, Not a 2nd liner imo) Hansen, Santorelli,

Kassian ( as of now ) etc.

Someone has probably said it already. We really dont have any 2nd line players. Those guys we think we can rely on, Kesler, Burrows. Without the sedins, arent 1st line players. And in reality, are kind of 3rd liners. Love these players, Want them on the team. But we need to consider building a team without a plethora of 3rd liners. Look how Chicagos built. They have Hossa Sharpe Toews and Kane between the top two lines. Were missing a lot of natural goal scoring skills that Kesler and Burrows just dont have.

I guess it's just a matter opinion but Kesler has shown he CAN be a second lone center with second line wingers. I'm sure if we could provide him with wingers he can trust we'd see Kesler of the old.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's my favorite Canuck, but I think he's one fo the few players on the team who is tradeable and actually has some trade value. The fact is MG has amassed a glut of 2nd-3rd line tweeners and it's killing the offense. At least one, maybe two of them are expendable, and, currently, Hansen does not have an NTC.

It's sad isn't it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather pay a player based on what he has done, opposed to what he has yet to do. Burrows was well under paid during his last contract, were people expecting to retain him 2 mill per? He deserved a raise, based on his play. Thats how contracts work.

Burrows may not be finding the back of the net yet (and it is simply a matter of time). The guy is simply snake bitten. 42 shots on net, in just 11 games. He is also one of the Canucks most versatile forwards, and a great 2 way player than can play up and down the lineup. Give him some time, he will find his game again.

That makes no sense.

That's horrible business sense in any situation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillis is a moron.

I've been a cancuks fan since I was 4 years old. We have always struggled and I like the underdog mentality, or I've grown accustomed to it.

Either way we have plenty of money now. We had the best team we've ever had two years ago but that's still no excuse for wasting our money.

Gillis makes it out like it's such a hard job. It is but in terms of players you just buy the best players you can. Overcomplicated.

It reminds me of the Flyers. Everyone tells them they need a goalie for 20 years and they never get a good one. It's obvious.

Now everyone tells MG he needs a second liner and he's just ignorant about it.

We spend to the cap there is no reason we shouldn't have a good goalscorer added to this team.

Henrik doesn't score much as a superstar $7 mil a year player. A goalscoer would help tremendously. It's blatantly obvious to me that a top notch goal scorer in the top 6 to bolster the Sedins would make us awesome.

Since you were 4 years old? So that makes you about 10 now?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you were 4 years old? So that makes you about 10 now?

Very clever. I've got more intelligence than you in my left nut.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very clever. I've got more intelligence than you in my left nut.

No doubt given all the reasonable 'GM' moves you would make. In fact, Gillis probably pales in comparison to you right?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Santorelli is not a 2nd line C on a contending team unless his wingers are like Sharp/Hossa

I disagree

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt given all the reasonable 'GM' moves you would make. In fact, Gillis probably pales in comparison to you right?

Well we will never know since I'll never be a GM.

I'm fairly sure I'd make reasonable moves. Why wouldn't I? It's not the toughest job in the world. Get the best players you can with the millions you are given. ???

Oh yeah, I'm a moron according to you, I forgot.

Still learning to tie my shoes. Can only do double knots.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty much open to anything at this point. If Hansen is in a package for someone we better be getting a damn good young player. I'd be pissed if he traded too much future for Alex semin or something. If were goin Hansen ++ I want an evander Kane type player.

Hansen is a pretty consistent player and only what? 26. He signs great contracts and exceeds them and probably still has 10 years of good hockey left in him. Any team that gets him, another player and a top prospect is making off like bandits in the trade.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.