Me_ Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 19 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said: Glad to see we go and trade for Prust only to want to get rid of him lol. Only the small audience of this site and the media are calling for it. Management knows the minute they get rid of Prust (or any player of that type), that the safe working environment they built becomes more dangerous for kids to develop in. Prust had to fight almost every game coming in, in order to establish that he's that guy. There is also the balance of fighting for every damn player that likes to get dirty but don't have push-back when the tough gets going. McCann, Virtanen and all the other kids out on the ice have to get tougher and letting them defend themselves, to a certain point, is a great way to make them tougher. Once that point is breached however, Prust, Dorsett and a few others are there to remind whoever the culprit is, that such actions against our youth will not be tolerated. If Prust goes after every person doing wrong in defense of every young guy who can't do it themselves, it makes Prust look like a loose cannon and fans complain and it makes for rookies looking like little twerps; it renders a different picture than what a team-building, all out bench clearing after a game can have on an organization. I will settle for fans complaining about Prust not wanting to be in Vancouver, Prust not being fast enough, Prust taking a spot away from a Grenier or a Gaunce, for Prust choosing his spot, teaching our best rookies some tough love, guidance and time to develop. McCann isn't what McCann is today if he is not playing with Prust and Dorsett. The Canucks know what they're doing with this one. Dorsett to Benning on Prust: "Thank you" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Time Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Personally, when I heard they got Prust last summer my only thought was that they got him to add temporary grit and then they would move him for a pick at the deadline. It was basically a way to get rid of Kassian, fill a roster spot with a veteran who is good in the room, and then monetize him at the trade deadline. If they can get any kind of draft pick that is a fifth rounder or higher, then they will have recouped their losses. As for Hamhuis and Vrbata, if Benning DOESN'T move them at the deadline it will be nothing short of unforgivable. I have to hope, given his comments in the media yesterday, that Benning is just saying the right things to the media but if he actually believes he should hold on to them, or even tries to sign Vrbata to an extension, he should be fired immediately. I have to hope he isn't as dumb as that but given some of his other signings, it's pretty hard to tell. This deadline, more than any other, gives the Canucks a chance to kick start their rebuild and get a decent return on Prust, Vrbata and Hamhuis. Let's hope Benning is smart enough to recognize that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Many are suggesting re-signing Hamhuis. While it depends on what is offered for him I say he should be moved. Again, it is all about moving a vet to make room for a younger player. I can easily see Hutton moving in as 2LD next year. For me it comes down to a choice between Hamhuis and Edler on the left side. When was the last time Hamhuis has gone uninjured for any amount of time? Besides that he is not reliable in the d-zone any longer. He is being beat to the outside and loses board battles more often than not. A Weber-Hamhuis pairing earlier this year was an adventure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nom_de_plume Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 2 hours ago, Losing With Pride said: Rebuild. However we keep winning.whining Florida. Islanders. Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Third rate blogger gonna third rate blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 11 minutes ago, Boudrias said: Many are suggesting re-signing Hamhuis. While it depends on what is offered for him I say he should be moved. Again, it is all about moving a vet to make room for a younger player. I can easily see Hutton moving in as 2LD next year. For me it comes down to a choice between Hamhuis and Edler on the left side. When was the last time Hamhuis has gone uninjured for any amount of time? Besides that he is not reliable in the d-zone any longer. He is being beat to the outside and loses board battles more often than not. A Weber-Hamhuis pairing earlier this year was an adventure. The downside of losing Hamhuis is the serious lack of veteran mentorship back there. Edler operates in silence, and Tanev is just establishing himself. If we can pick up a good UFA then we'd be okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timberz21 Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 7 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said: The downside of losing Hamhuis is the serious lack of veteran mentorship back there. Edler operates in silence, and Tanev is just establishing himself. If we can pick up a good UFA then we'd be okay. Exactly, when we look at the depth chart on the left side, technically it should be Edler, Hutton and Sbisa. Signing a right-handed Hamhuis via free-agency to play with Hutton would be ideal. But I don't think there is much choice this summer, so it would likely be a trade....sucks that Seabrook re-signed. To make sense we would have to sign Hamhuis at like 4M for 1 or 2 year max. Pretty sure Hamhuis will get minimum 5M for 3 years on the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me_ Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 15 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said: The downside of losing Hamhuis is the serious lack of veteran mentorship back there. Edler operates in silence, and Tanev is just establishing himself. If we can pick up a good UFA then we'd be okay. Yes. Hamhuis is considered the nicest guy in hockey. Nice doesn't win Cups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 I suppose this is what passes for journalism these days. Check Capgeek and see who's a pending UFA and then speculate that they "might" be moved... Wow. That's some mighty impressive investigatin' there Tex... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 52 minutes ago, Boudrias said: Many are suggesting re-signing Hamhuis. While it depends on what is offered for him I say he should be moved. Again, it is all about moving a vet to make room for a younger player. I can easily see Hutton moving in as 2LD next year. For me it comes down to a choice between Hamhuis and Edler on the left side. When was the last time Hamhuis has gone uninjured for any amount of time? Besides that he is not reliable in the d-zone any longer. He is being beat to the outside and loses board battles more often than not. A Weber-Hamhuis pairing earlier this year was an adventure. To me, it's more about the trade value of hammer vs the value of him on the roster. I'm not convinced that any team is going to offer up much more than a 3rd or 4th for a guy coming off a serious head injury (if he's even ready by the deadline). If that's the case, they are better off keeping Hammer and either re-signing him at a reduced rate, or letting him walk in the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 23 minutes ago, Me_ said: Yes. Hamhuis is considered the nicest guy in hockey. Nice doesn't win Cups. ironically, if Hamhuis had not been injured in the Finals, I am positive the Canucks would have won that series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefcakeBo Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 31 minutes ago, timberz21 said: Exactly, when we look at the depth chart on the left side, technically it should be Edler, Hutton and Sbisa. Signing a right-handed Hamhuis via free-agency to play with Hutton would be ideal. But I don't think there is much choice this summer, so it would likely be a trade....sucks that Seabrook re-signed. To make sense we would have to sign Hamhuis at like 4M for 1 or 2 year max. Pretty sure Hamhuis will get minimum 5M for 3 years on the market. The problem is that there aren't a lot of top 4 D going to free agency and the ones that do are also going to be paid like they are in high demand. Realistically can the Canucks get someone that's any better for any less money? The one thing that we really have going for us is that Hamhuis is from BC and wants to play in Vancouver. He likely takes a discount to stay here over longer term or money elsewhere. I don't think it would be that unreasonable to see him sign at a similar cap hit for a short one or two year term if that's what it takes to stay with vancouver. I'd rather move Edler for a right D with an offensive game. It would be a lot more realistic to expect to get that in return without giving up our prospects or picks. Something around an Edler for Harmonic swap would be ideal with a couple smaller pieces to balance it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 5 minutes ago, LarsEller said: The problem is that there aren't a lot of top 4 D going to free agency and the ones that do are also going to be paid like they are in high demand. Realistically can the Canucks get someone that's any better for any less money? The one thing that we really have going for us is that Hamhuis is from BC and wants to play in Vancouver. He likely takes a discount to stay here over longer term or money elsewhere. I don't think it would be that unreasonable to see him sign at a similar cap hit for a short one or two year term if that's what it takes to stay with vancouver. Cap space isn't an issue at ALL in the near term. Buff, Yandle, Goligoski, Demers etc are all currently still available, top 4 UFA's. "For less money" shouldn't even equal in to the equation. We need to get better, younger and have a better makeup of D, particularly some top 4 right side D. We shouldn't be value shopping, we should be shopping for what we need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Time Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Why can't the Canucks have both? They could trade Hamhuis at the deadline then sign him back as a UFA. As long as the term and cap is reasonable, this could be a massive win for everyone. Phoenix did that with Vermette last year and Vermette go a Stanley Cup ring out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefcakeBo Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Just now, J.R. said: Cap space isn't an issue at ALL in the near term. Buff, Yandle, Goligoski, Demers etc are all currently still available, top 4 UFA's. "For less money" shouldn't even equal in to the equation. We need to get better, younger and have a better makeup of D, particularly some top 4 right side D. We shouldn't be value shopping, we should be shopping for what we need. I'm not suggesting we need to be in the bargain bin, just that if Hamhuis goes to free agency and gets a big overpayment so will any of the other top 4 D available. If the reason we shouldn't resign him is the overpayment the poster I quoted was talking about then it's unrealistic to think we are going to replace that with anyone else that isn't getting an overpayment. Look at he Contract Sekera got this summer. 6@5.5m. I agree that a right side D needs to be a priority though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 1 minute ago, LarsEller said: I'm not suggesting we need to be in the bargain bin, just that if Hamhuis goes to free agency and gets a big overpayment so will any of the other top 4 D available. If the reason we shouldn't resign him is the overpayment the poster I quoted was talking about then it's unrealistic to think we are going to replace that with anyone else that isn't getting an overpayment. Look at he Contract Sekera got this summer. 6@5.5m. I agree that a right side D needs to be a priority though. I took the poster you quoted's comments to be that if Hamhuis where right handed he'd make more sense for us to sign (being a major organizational need). Since he's not generally a fit moving forward (given our left D depth), the only reason he makes much sense is at a discount and even then I'd question the wisdom in it myself. Sadly, as good of a man and player as he's been with us, IMO it's time to part ways. We can largely already replace Hamhuis from within and should be looking to spend his cap dollars improving elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Quote "One of the things that I've picked up on this trip being around the Canucks' brass, and it's loud and clear to me: the Chris Higgins move was the first domino. They are now willing to make the transition to a younger team and there will be other dominoes to drop here." Sekeres http://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-1040-i-1410/abbott-is-prust-playing-the-right-choice-1.425412 Been saying this since the Higgins move -- JB has seen enough, and the clean-out has begun. Some people as always will complain "we didn't get enough, Benning got fleeced" but so be it. JB will do what's necessary to improve this team. Exciting times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Garbage source. Obvious speculation might be news to someone in Kazakhstan, but it's a serious snowtire on CDC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweathog Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 I'm not going to expect much in return for these vets should they be traded, with the exception of Vrbata. We've held on to most of our vets for too long to get any real value for them, but that's water under the bridge. I think Burrows might have some value to a contender, but we would have to take a bad contract in return along with a pick/prospect. Ideally that contract will expire after this season so Benning will have more capspace to work with this summer. I wouldn't mind keeping Hamhuis after this season if we dealt Tanev instead. I think Tanev holds decent value around the league, and he has been excellent for us, but is too soft a d-man for us to keep long-term. Especially in our division, where we need a bigger and grittier defense to compete. Hamhuis could be re-signed for that veteran presence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 18 minutes ago, Sweathog said: I'm not going to expect much in return for these vets should they be traded, with the exception of Vrbata. We've held on to most of our vets for too long to get any real value for them, but that's water under the bridge. I think Burrows might have some value to a contender, but we would have to take a bad contract in return along with a pick/prospect. Ideally that contract will expire after this season so Benning will have more capspace to work with this summer. I wouldn't mind keeping Hamhuis after this season if we dealt Tanev instead. I think Tanev holds decent value around the league, and he has been excellent for us, but is too soft a d-man for us to keep long-term. Especially in our division, where we need a bigger and grittier defense to compete. Hamhuis could be re-signed for that veteran presence. I'd be fine moving both edler and tanev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.