Our Defense SUCKS

[Heretic]

Because a defenseman's point total is the only relevant stat when comparing their salary and effectiveness...

So you're saying, if you were a GM, you take Hamhuis over Keith?

[Dekey Pete]

So you're saying, if you were a GM, you take Hamhuis over Keith?

Before or after the Daniel Sedin incident?

I'm just saying I don't think Hamhuis is as overrated as his stats from last year show. Not to mention, last year was an anomaly for many of our players.

[CanucksSayEh]

Before or after the Daniel Sedin incident?

I'm just saying I don't think Hamhuis is as overrated as his stats from last year show. Not to mention, last year was an anomaly for many of our players.

Dunno about that. Outside of Henrik and Burrows, most players that were bad last year, were so the year before as well.

[Heretic]

Before or after the Daniel Sedin incident?

I'm just saying I don't think Hamhuis is as overrated as his stats from last year show. Not to mention, last year was an anomaly for many of our players.

What does that have to do with "top" defensemen?

I'm sure the Sedins would rather play with him than against him.

So if last year was an "anomaly" - does that mean the owners are entitled to a rebate from the players?

How about the year before - was that an "anomaly" as well?

I know, Hammer was injured that year.

Don't get me wrong, I like him - I just don't think he's in the same class as the top defensemen around the league.

[wallstreetamigo]

What does that have to do with "top" defensemen?

I'm sure the Sedins would rather play with him than against him.

So if last year was an "anomaly" - does that mean the owners are entitled to a rebate from the players?

How about the year before - was that an "anomaly" as well?

I know, Hammer was injured that year.

Don't get me wrong, I like him - I just don't think he's in the same class as the top defensemen around the league.

I have to agree. I see Hamhuis as a very good #2 or #3 dman on a team with better than an average defense (like ours). He is the type of guy who can anchor a pairing but is at his best when he doesn't have to carry a partner.

[RonMexico]

Every team is thin on the blue line.

Take out of the top 2 defencemen on any team and watch how they do.

Since there are no #1 defencemen FAs just laying around and you can't trade for one it seems, the only option teams have left is to fill from within or have someone step up and seize the opportunity.

[wallstreetamigo]

For all the aggressive play by our D pinching in and joining the rush it is a bit weird to see none of them generating points. Not even second assists with their riskiness.

Now is when WD needs to show he is an NHL head coach. He needs to make adjustments to the style because he just does not have the horses on D to pull it off effectively.

JB needs to show he is an NHL GM too and not follow MG path of over-patience.

We have seen this same movie for several years now. The ending never changes. Time to move a vet or two and bring back youth and picks. The accountability we saaw earlier in the season from the coaching/management is fast becoming the same as AV/MG era accountability. The favorites are not held accountable for playing like shit.

[Hondamatic]

Bieksa is fine. He is a heart and soul player who is going through a bad patch. Part of his problem is when the team is going through a bad patch he seeks too much offensive work in order to change things. He needs to learn to ration his efforts.

The team, if it has one fault is there are too many players who disappear. Higgins, Burrows, Hansen, Kassian and lets be honest Bo.

If I was JB I would be looking for a way to offload Higgins Kassian and Hansen. We have waited too long for them to become consistent. In fact our poor spells even in the past have coincided with the disappearance of these players.

It is ridiculous that people are picking on Bieksa rather than the players above. At least Bieksa is in there battling and trying to tun the tide, these others with the exception of Burr just disappear.

I could not disagree with you more about Bieksa. Don Cherry has hailed his praises way too much, because YES, he is a tough SOB and doesn't take shit from anyone. However, he was never fast, and his skating lately is beyond slow! He also gets himself in very bad position when he pinches when he should not. His giveaways are atrocious! He needs to be sat for a game, put him in the pressbox to watch the play develop and maybe he will get back on the ice with a better decision making process, based on HIS abilities (and lack of some). Being totally honest, from a guy who loves what Bieksa stands for, he has really played poorly for at least the last 10-12 games. Too many guys trying to make up for the loss of Hammer have cost us severely in the goals against department.

[Gollumpus]

So you're saying, if you were a GM, you take Hamhuis over Keith?

I see a bit of cherry picking going on here. As you have noted:

Last year:

Hamhuis: 79gm, 5G, 17A, 22pts $4,500,000 cap *+13

Keith: 79gm, 6G, 55A, 61pts $5,538,462 cap *+22

A very good year for Keith. A very poor year for the Canucks, and by extension Hamhuis in total points and +/-. The results for the other three years that Hamhuis has been here are as follows.

2012 - 13

Hamhuis: 47gm, 4g 20a, 24pts +9

Keith: 47gm, 3g, 24a, 27pts, +16

2011 - 12

Hamhuis: 82gm, 4g, 33a, 37pts, +29

Keith: 74 gm, 4g, 36a, 40pts, +15

2010 - 11

Hamhuis: 64gm, 6g, 17a, 23pts, +29

Keith: 82gm, 7g, 38a, 45pts, -1

Goals: Hamhuis - 19, Keith - 20

Asst: Hamhuis - 87, Keith - 153

+/-: Hamhuis - +80 Keith - +52

There's really nothing in those seasons to separate these two as far as goals. If Keith is supposed to be the superior choice as a #1 d-man then I'd expect that he would have scored more goals than Hamhuis, or that "he should be able to do it all" (Mathew Barzal) which clearly Keith isn't.

A lot of the difference in total points could be put down to the situation of the respective teams. In Chicago Keith is/was perhaps one of the better options for offensive zone starts. For the Canucks, perhaps they had better options in a couple of those seasons, like Erhoff and Edler. Keith appears to have had more opportunity to be in a position where he could gain the extra assists.

What else Keith has going for him (pointswise) is reflected in how the respective teams were doing. In 2013 - 14 the Hawks were scoring 3.13 goals per game compared to 2.33 for the Canucks. Not too surprising that Keith's record shows so well.

In 2012 - 13, the Hawks were scoring 3.1 goals per game compared to 2.54 for the Canucks, and yet Keith barely got got past Hamhuis in total points.

In 2011 - 12, the Hawks were scoring 2.94 goals per game compared to 2.94 for the Canucks. Another close call.

In 2010 - 11 the Hawks were scoring 3.07 goals per game compared to 3.15 for the Canucks. The difference here in a total point comparison between Hamhuis and Keith is fewer games played by Hamhuis and the Ehrhoff factor (50 pts).

Keith is likely the better offensive d-man of the two, but he is not my first choice for a defensive d-man. Were their positions reversed and the Canucks had Keith then there may have been a few more goals scored, but I suspect that there would have a lot more goals scored against.

regards,

G.

[Dekey Pete]

What does that have to do with "top" defensemen?

I'm sure the Sedins would rather play with him than against him.

So if last year was an "anomaly" - does that mean the owners are entitled to a rebate from the players?

How about the year before - was that an "anomaly" as well?

I know, Hammer was injured that year.

Don't get me wrong, I like him - I just don't think he's in the same class as the top defensemen around the league.

Before or after the hit on Sedin? I would say that has a lot to do with who I would choose. As a GM signing Keith could be viewed as a pretty terrible move, given what he did to one of our top guys. Hamhuis is a great defenseman, and has great character.

I'm also not so sure the Sedin's would be arms open to play with a guy who tried to end put Daniel to sleep with one of the worst elbows I've seen in recent memory. Here's a refresher:

and another from this piece of trash...

My original point was that you posted one seasons point totals against another defensemen's, compared their salary and jumped to the conclusion one is better than the other. That's just short-sighted. Gollumpus sums it up pretty well above.

Hamhuis also played for team Canada last year, so he's obviously in the top defensemen conversation. Yeah, he was scratched for much of the tournament, but he was still chosen to play on the team.

[Heretic]

I see a bit of cherry picking going on here. As you have noted:

Last year:

Hamhuis: 79gm, 5G, 17A, 22pts $4,500,000 cap *+13

Keith: 79gm, 6G, 55A, 61pts $5,538,462 cap *+22

A very good year for Keith. A very poor year for the Canucks, and by extension Hamhuis in total points and +/-. The results for the other three years that Hamhuis has been here are as follows.

2012 - 13

Hamhuis: 47gm, 4g 20a, 24pts +9

Keith: 47gm, 3g, 24a, 27pts, +16

2011 - 12

Hamhuis: 82gm, 4g, 33a, 37pts, +29

Keith: 74 gm, 4g, 36a, 40pts, +15

2010 - 11

Hamhuis: 64gm, 6g, 17a, 23pts, +29

Keith: 82gm, 7g, 38a, 45pts, -1

Goals: Hamhuis - 19, Keith - 20

Asst: Hamhuis - 87, Keith - 153

+/-: Hamhuis - +80 Keith - +52

There's really nothing in those seasons to separate these two as far as goals. If Keith is supposed to be the superior choice as a #1 d-man then I'd expect that he would have scored more goals than Hamhuis, or that "he should be able to do it all" (Mathew Barzal) which clearly Keith isn't.

A lot of the difference in total points could be put down to the situation of the respective teams. In Chicago Keith is/was perhaps one of the better options for offensive zone starts. For the Canucks, perhaps they had better options in a couple of those seasons like Erhoff and Edler. Keith appears to have had more opportunity to be in a position where he could gain the extra assists.

What else Keith has going for him (pointswise) is reflected in how the respective teams were doing. In 2013 - 14 the Hawks were scoring 3.13 goals per game compared to 2.33 for the Canucks. Not too surprising that Keith's recod shows so well.

In 2012 - 13, the Hawks were scoring 3.1 goals per game compared to 2.54 for the Canucks, and yet Keith barely got got past Hamhuis in total points.

In 2011 - 12, the Hawks were scoring 2.94 goals per game compared to 2.94 for the Canucks. Another close call.

In 2010 - 11 the Hawks were scoring 3.07 goals per game compared to 3.15 for the Canucks. The difference here is games played and the Ehrhoff factor (50 pts).

Keith is likely the better offensive d-man of the two, but he is not my first choice for a defensive d-man. Were their positions reversed and the Canucks had Keith then there may have been a few more goals scored, but I suspect that there would have a lot more goals scored against.

regards,

G.

Well said and I agree with most except on whether he's a defensive defenseman. If that was the case, why it it that Keith always plays against other teams top forward lines?

As far as "dirty" - we've had our "Bertuzzi's" on this team, including Bert.

Gee, didn't Kassian take out Gagne and wasn't Edler also suspended last year?

Just saying, that as a GM, looking for the best in a position, not a Canucks fan holding grudges...

[Heretic]

Before or after the hit on Sedin? I would say that has a lot to do with who I would choose. As a GM signing Keith could be viewed as a pretty terrible move, given what he did to one of our top guys. Hamhuis is a great defenseman, and has great character.

I'm also not so sure the Sedin's would be arms open to play with a guy who tried to end put Daniel to sleep with one of the worst elbows I've seen in recent memory. Here's a refresher:

and another from this piece of trash...

My original point was that you posted one seasons point totals against another defensemen's, compared their salary and jumped to the conclusion one is better than the other. That's just short-sighted. Gollumpus sums it up pretty well above.

Hamhuis also played for team Canada last year, so he's obviously in the top defensemen conversation. Yeah, he was scratched for much of the tournament, but he was still chosen to play on the team.

No - it's not short sighted.

It's one form of measurement - you can not manage what you can't measure.

He's currently -5 on a team that has scored more goals for than against.

There's another measurement for you - and he hasn't played during the Canucks slide so that -5 could be even worse now.

Stop being hypocritical as far as "dirty" plays.

[Gollumpus]

Well said and I agree with most except on whether he's a defensive defenseman. If that was the case, why it it that Keith always plays against other teams top forward lines?

As far as "dirty" - we've had our "Bertuzzi's" on this team, including Bert.

Gee, didn't Kassian take out Gagne and wasn't Edler also suspended last year?

Just saying, that as a GM, looking for the best in a position, not a Canucks fan holding grudges...

Well chum, I'd put that down to "you play your best against the other guy's best".

It was not my intention to imply that Keith isn't a capable defensive d-man, just that Hamhuis is the better choice. Just as I'd likely put Keith out on the ice over Hamhuis if the play was in the offensive zone.

regards,

G.

[Dekey Pete]

No - it's not short sighted.

It's one form of measurement - you can not manage what you can't measure.

He's currently -5 on a team that has scored more goals for than against.

There's another measurement for you - and he hasn't played during the Canucks slide so that -5 could be even worse now.

Stop being hypocritical as far as "dirty" plays.

Ok so you cherry pick another stat from his 20 games played this season...

Yannick Weber is a +2, Dan Hamhuis is a -5. Hamhuis makes more money, therefore Hamhuis sucks. Is that right?

[nuck nit]

Oh, and you guys thinking Hamhuis is a "top" defensemen? Maybe the "top" on the Caunucks...

Last year:

Hamhuis: 79gm, 5G, 17A, 22pts $4,500,000 cap

Keith: 79gm, 6G, 55A, 61pts $5,538,462 cap

So Keith has almost 3 times the points for only $1 million more in cap.

Our defense are overpaid as well...

Keith was paid $8m two years ago,three years ago,four years ago.....

Keith actually makes $7.6m this year.

[nuck nit]

I remember saying something to the effect that we have mediocre defense at best for the last 2 years - reason being? We have over paid our forwards. Welcome to the cap gentlemen.

Welcome to the aftermath of Gillis' NTC fiasco.

[Gollumpus]

Keith was paid $8m two years ago,three years ago,four years ago.....

Keith actually makes $7.6m this year.

That's beside the point, nuck. Heretic specifically noted that he was talking caphit so the amount he used is correct.

regards,

G.

[nuck nit]

That's beside the point, nuck. Heretic specifically noted that he was talking caphit so the amount he used is correct.

regards,

G.

Tell that to the man that pays out the salaries.

He chose the cap but not the salary structure.

Keith was awarded a $72m contract and it is front end loaded.

Hamhuis is being paid $4.25 m this year and is our third highest paid d man.

Bieksa is the second highest paid.

To put it into Heretic terms,Keith is paid a $ 1.65 million less than Hamhuis and Bieksa combined-this year.

When Keith is 40 years old his cap hit is still $5.538 million.

[Heretic]

Ok so you cherry pick another stat from his 20 games played this season...

Yannick Weber is a +2, Dan Hamhuis is a -5. Hamhuis makes more money, therefore Hamhuis sucks. Is that right?

I never mentioned "sucked". Our defense doesn't suck. They are mediocre is what I said. Oilers on the other hand...

I'm looking at it from the big picture - basically, an owners point of view and value you get for your money.

That said, we are paying $3 million less per year (Cap) compared to the Hawks and Blues for our defense.

[Heretic]

Tell that to the man that pays out the salaries.

He chose the cap but not the salary structure.

Keith was awarded a $72m contract and it is front end loaded.

Hamhuis is being paid $4.25 m this year and is our third highest paid d man.

Bieksa is the second highest paid.

To put it into Heretic terms,Keith is paid a $ 1.65 million less than Hamhuis and Bieksa combined-this year.

When Keith is 40 years old his cap hit is still $5.538 million.

And Keith has a cup to show for it...which brings up another point, if the Canucks had won in 2011, what do you surmise Hamhuis would be getting now? The Sedins?