Future of Dan Hamhuis

[pmalina]

Jim Benning and the whole management group expressed pretty clearly that Canucks want to remain competitive and want to develop young players with the guidance of good mentors. I understand this strategy and support this. I think Sedins should retire as Canucks and be mentors to younger players.

If I look on our roster, this is what I see:

a ) forwards: Obviously, we have Sedins there as our veterans. Burrows is a great example how hard it can be to get yourself to the next level as well.

b ) goalies: Miller is here as an experienced goalie who should be a mentor to younger goalies.

c ) defence: Here, that´s interesting. Only veteran with leadership skills I can really see is Dan Hamhuis. He is the only one aged above 30, still just 32 years old. Dan is UFA at the end of next season. Some people are suggesting to trade Hamhuis for picks at the trade deadline. If we would trade him, there is nobody else to be that mentor. It is more apparent now after Bieksa´s departure.

What do you guys think?

- Should we trade Dan Hamhuis at deadline or give him an extension?

- Is this mentor thing overrated?

[PhillipBlunt]

Jim Benning and the whole management group expressed pretty clearly that Canucks want to remain competitive and want to develop young players with the guidance of good mentors. I understand this strategy and support this. I think Sedins should retire as Canucks and be mentors to younger players.

If I look on our roster, this is what I see:

a ) forwards: Obviously, we have Sedins there as our veterans. Burrows is a great example how hard it can be to get yourself to the next level as well.

b ) goalies: Miller is here as an experienced goalie who should be a mentor to younger goalies.

c ) defence: Here, that´s interesting. Only veteran with leadership skills I can really see is Dan Hamhuis. He is the only one aged above 30, still just 32 years old. Dan is UFA at the end of next season. Some people are suggesting to trade Hamhuis for picks at the trade deadline. If we would trade him, there is nobody else to be that mentor. It is more apparent now after Bieksa´s departure.

What do you guys think?

- Should we trade Dan Hamhuis at deadline or give him an extension?

- Is this mentor thing overrated?

I think Hamhuis needs to stay, unless Benning has plans on signing a true, proven top 4 defenseman in next year's free agency.

Having a mentor on the blueline would be a very valuable asset.

[TheYjUstMaKeYoUwooZy]

I think it all comes down to deadline day. Where I believe that Vrbata is definite trade bait I think the stars need to aline properly for Hammer to be traded.

First we need to be out of the playoff picture

Secondly a contender with cap space and the right, high quality, young asset needs to shore up their defense.

[BI3KSA-]

Best case scenario: We trade him for a first at the deadline, he wins a cup and resigns in the summer for like 2.5-3 mil AAV. A man can dream.

[Fanuck]

Gut feeling is he gets traded @ deadline for a very good return. Then, some team offers him ridiculous $/term/ntc, and because he already took a hometown discount to win here last contract (calm down Smithers, u know what I mean), he takes the money and runs. Hope I'm wrong, but seen that show too many times....

[smithers joe]

i believe, benning is waiting to see if his game reverts to the way he has played before...he had a struggle this past year...imo, hammy gets a new contract before next season starts..he is important to this team and what he can impart on the young d-men coming in...

[-DLC-]

i believe, benning is waiting to see if his game reverts to the way he has played before...he had a struggle this past year...imo, hammy gets a new contract before next season starts..he is important to this team and what he can impart on the young d-men coming in...

I agree. There are some players who instill a sense of calm in the team and are reliable and solid. They quietly go about their business but you can count on them when needed. I believe he's still got something to contribute here and hope he sticks around.

[By sea and land]

Trade at the deadline for a much needed nice haul.

[Fanuck]

I agree. There are some players who instill a sense of calm in the team and are reliable and solid. They quietly go about their business but you can count on them when needed.

You're talking about Tanev, right;)? Just kidding.

Agreed about Hammer, but what he could fetch at deadline will be too enticing for JB imo, that's one gm who's crazy for draft picks!

[Canucks Curse]

Trade at the deadline for a much needed nice haul.

I'd actually would have moved Edler already and resigned hammer this summer.

Edler has more valuable and is far less of a mentor- in fact sometimes it looks like Edler still needs mentoring.

Would have moved Edler to NYI for Edmonton's first and solid prospect (I mean Griffen Reinhart got a 1st and 2nd) and drafted Barzal. Hammer was on the world championship team as a assistant captain and then captain when Crosby was out- reason- great mentor

[Canucklehead73]

I think the mentor aspect is a good thing to have but the key point is your mentor has to BE SUCCESSFUL for anything he says to carry weight.... Who would listen?

Too many times this year Hamhuis has given up on plays and curled back into his own end just to be forechecked off the puck... Just seems to have lost his confidence in either himself or his team mates. Too many bad plays as of late. Can't shoot or score. Falls down a lot lately allowing odd man rushes.

Thats's Bennings call but I'd be looking to move him but that's just me

[TOMapleLaughs]

The 'mentor' was supposed to be career Canuck Kevin Bieksa, who wanted to stay. Now that he's gone, you can throw the whole 'mentor' thing into the trash.

It will be difficult to get Hamhuis to stay, esp. when the Canucks aren't even approaching him with a contract extension at this point.

[D-Money]

The reason Hamhuis seemed to "struggle" last year is he rarely had a decent partner. He made Weber look like a decent top-4 defenseman. Before that, he made Sbisa look the same. Both were terrible without him. The problem in Vancouver is, we've never had that #1 RD for him to play with. The closest thing we had was Bieksa at his peak, but after he regressed Hamhuis hasn't been properly utilized.

Then at the World Championships, he was an absolute beast with Brent Burns. His presence allowed Burns to go nuts, while knowing someone had his back. Doug Wilson has said in interviews that they specifically targeted Paul Martin in free agency because he was the most similar player to Dan Hamhuis available. (And although he didn't say it, Hamhuis is viewed as the superior player.)

So make no mistake, Hamhuis is highly regarded around the league. He's still a quality #2 defenseman. There are lots of contending teams that would pay through the nose to add a Hamhuis at the deadline (last year L.A. paid a 1st and McKeown for Sekera - and Hamhuis is easily an equivalent...if not better).

I think what will happen is Benning will wait - specifically to see how Clendening and Corrado do. If one of them surprises, and seems like a quality top-4 D-man who pairs well with Hamhuis, and the team overall is in good position for a playoff spot, they will try to extend him. But if no quality RD emerges, or they are struggling and looking to miss the playoffs, or they cannot get an extension done, then they will move him at the deadline.

I think odds are he gets traded. And really, it is in the best interests of the franchise long-term. We aren't in a position to contend for a cup in the next couple of years, and after that Hamhuis will likely be much less effective. May as well turn him into younger players that will help us more when we're ready.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

I'm fine with either of the two options: (1) trade Hamhuis at the deadline or (2) sign him to an extension (likely at a discount).

I'm not ok with the third option: (3) hold onto Hamhuis and then lose him (for zero return) when he hits free agency.

As long as Benning doesn't go with option (3) on Hamhuis, or any other key assets (Vrbata, etc.), then I'll be happy.

I just don't want to see any more wasted assets, lost for zero return, like what happened with Matthias and Richardson. I'm happy to chase the playoffs but the first priority needs to be making the most of this team's assets for the future. Any player that is not part of the future plans (ie: any impending UFA that is not extended) needs to be traded for whatever future assets (picks, prospects, under-25 players, etc.) they can secure.

And only players that can aide in the transition should be extended. Keep players that fit the timeline for when this team will compete. Or keep select veterans who can form a mentorship core through the transition.

I think Hanhuis could definitely be helpful here.

But he could also yield a tidy package of future assets.

It's up to Benning to determine which is more valuable to this team.

I'll trust JB to make the right choice. And I'll be very happy with either option (1) or option (2), so long as we avoid the dreaded option (3).

[one night]

 

I think Hamhuis needs to stay, unless Benning has plans on signing a true, proven top 4 defenseman in next year's free agency.

Having a mentor on the blueline would be a very valuable asset.

 

So if you figure Hamhuis is not a true top 4 d-man, what the heck do you figure he is?

[TOMapleLaughs]

I'm fine with either of the two options: (1) trade Hamhuis at the deadline or (2) sign him to an extension (likely at a discount).

I'm not ok with the third option: (3) hold onto Hamhuis and then lose him (for zero return) when he hits free agency.

As long as Benning doesn't go with option (3) on Hamhuis, or any other key assets (Vrbata, etc.), then I'll be happy.

I just don't want to see any more wasted assets, lost for zero return, like what happened with Matthias and Richardson. I'm happy to chase the playoffs but the first priority needs to be making the most of this team's assets for the future. Any player that is not part of the future plans (ie: any impending UFA that is not extended) needs to be traded for whatever future assets (picks, prospects, under-25 players, etc.) they can secure.

And only players that can aide in the transition should be extended. Keep players that fit the timeline for when this team will compete. Or keep select veterans who can form a mentorship core through the transition.

I think Hanhuis could definitely be helpful here.

But he could also yield a tidy package of future assets.

It's up to Benning to determine which is more valuable to this team.

I'll trust JB to make the right choice. And I'll be very happy with either option (1) or option (2), so long as we avoid the dreaded option (3).

Is option 2's discount even possible? He already gave the team a discount when he first signed here.

As much as option 3 stinks, I'm prepared for it.

[Aladeen]

Trade him at the deadline and sign him in free agency a la Vermette.

[hockeyking]

The 'mentor' was supposed to be career Canuck Kevin Bieksa, who wanted to stay. Now that he's gone, you can throw the whole 'mentor' thing into the trash.

It will be difficult to get Hamhuis to stay, esp. when the Canucks aren't even approaching him with a contract extension at this point.

Canucks didn't approach Sbisa, Dorsette and Tanev for their extensions until after the season started why would it be any dfferent for hamhuis.

I think most people are making something out of nothing like the canucks are shopping higgins.

[aGENT]

There's a lot of variables to this...

I'd be happy if we re-signed him at something reasonable (say $4mX 3 years) but I'd also be happy with a tidy return for his services at the deadline.

A lot will depend on where we are in the standings and if Hamhuis will even waive his NTC.

Best case scenario is that we're looking out of the playoff picture at the deadline, move him for a nice return, he goes to a contender for a few months to try to win a cup and then he re-signs here at a reasonable extension in the summer. Win, win, win.

Worst case, he walks in the summer for nothing.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Canucks didn't approach Sbisa, Dorsette and Tanev for their extensions until after the season started why would it be any dfferent for hamhuis.

I think most people are making something out of nothing like the canucks are shopping higgins.

The main difference would be that Hamhuis is older and may want to move on to a team that can contend for a cup. After all, he went from a retooling Nashville to a team that could compete right away initially. If Bieksa ultimately waived, and he initially wanted to stay, that to me makes it clear what the veteran intent is. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.

If we trade Hamhuis at the deadline, it would have to be to a team like Chicago as they try to repeat. It might even be Anaheim. Maybe even back to Nashville.