[Speculation] Canucks looking to move Hamhuis, Vrbata, Prust, Weber, possibly Burrows and Higgins

[BeefcakeBo]

24 minutes ago, J.R. said:

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. 

I don't think I'd go as far as saying we have depth at left D but at least it's not as bad as the right side. Edler isn't good, and we won't win anything with him playing a lot of minutes regardless of what pairing he's on. Sbisa is ok for a third pair guy, and Hutton is still a rookie and putting him into more min on the second pair could be difficult in his sophomore year. Especially given that his partners at this point would be either Webber or Bartowski. Also considering the number of injuries we get on the backend every year it really wouldn't be bad to have en extra competent D man especially considering the amount of capspace we have going forward. It gives us more flexibility as well to trade Edler, which is really essential moving forward to get value for him before he is another burrows or higgins.

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, LarsEller said:

I don't think I'd go as far as saying we have depth at left D but at least it's not as bad as the right side. Edler isn't good, and we won't win anything with him playing a lot of minutes regardless of what pairing he's on. Sbisa is ok for a third pair guy, and Hutton is still a rookie and putting him into more min on the second pair could be difficult in his sophomore year. Especially given that his partners at this point would be either Webber or Bartowski. Also considering the number of injuries we get on the backend every year it really wouldn't be bad to have en extra competent D man especially considering the amount of capspace we have going forward. It gives us more flexibility as well to trade Edler, which is really essential moving forward to get value for him before he is another burrows or higgins.

Edler IS good, which is why he has value. I'm not opposed to moving him though if he can get us something like Hamonic or Gudbranson.

Sbisa would be fine on a 2nd pair with a quality partner (I'd be fine with a Sbisa/Tanev pair as our 2nd unit next year). But he certainly can't anchor a 2nd unit. He's better off on 3rd pair in the case. And of course assuming an upgrade to our 1st unit.

Agreed on Hutton, keep him on 3rd pair with low expectation and lesser competition. He can stretch a bit filling in in the top 4 periodically for injuries.

Either way, our left D depth doesn't need Hamhuis.

Edler (UFA if traded), Sbisa, Hutton, Bartowski (if retained/can play both sides), Pedan, Tryamkin is plenty of depth with little need or use for Hamhuis.

[BeefcakeBo]

5 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Edler IS good, which is why he has value. I'm not opposed to moving him though if he can get us something like Hamonic or Gudbranson.

Sbisa would be fine on a 2nd pair with a quality partner (I'd be fine with a Sbisa/Tanev pair as our 2nd unit next year). But he certainly can't anchor a 2nd unit. He's better off on 3rd pair in the case. And of course assuming an upgrade to our 1st unit.

Agreed on Hutton, keep him on 3rd pair with low expectation and lesser competition. He can stretch a bit filling in in the top 4 periodically for injuries.

Either way, our left D depth doesn't need Hamhuis.

Edler (UFA if traded), Sbisa, Hutton, Bartowski (if retained/can play both sides), Pedan, Tryamkin is plenty of depth with little need or use for Hamhuis.

It's seems that we disagree on Edler so our opinions on the the left D depth isn't going to find a common ground.

Personally I wish we would have traded Edler before his last contract was signed and I've never liked him. He's overrated and the Canucks will never be contenders with him on the top pairing. It's not what people want to hear but he just isn't good enough to win with. He just can't play consistently, has no intensity to his game and he is too big of a liability for the very minimal offensive presence that he brings. I'd very gladly move him for prospects or picks that would have the potential to become what Edler never will. 

[Lancaster]

Everyone knows about Burrows scrapping up from being undrafted to the ECHL, up with the Moose, then becoming a regular and hero for the Canucks.  We all know about how Higgins was a NHL journeyman.... coming to the Canucks and being a reliable 2-way player.  Dan Hamhuis.... being the local guy coming back home to play, and was a stalwart on defense, winning gold with Canada and probably would have had the Canucks lifting the Cup in 2011 had he been not injured.

But at a certain point, you have to move on.  You're not getting rid of them just to get rid of them, you're hoping that another team wants/needs them more than you do. 

Many diehards would gladly give a up an organ for Trevor Linden... but there's a reason he's not still playing on the Canucks, even though we all know of his 94 heroics, being Captain Canucks, etc.  He can't play at the levels demanded of him.  Much like Burrows, Hamhuis, and Higgings... they're not playing at the level we need them to be.  Whether it's just age, the new coaching system, or just being in one place too long.... as a hockey savvy group, we should realize that they may be better elsewhere... and the returns for them will make the Canucks great again.

[Nuxfanabroad]

4 hours ago, Filthy McNasty said:

We could move all those players and not skip a beat, that's the best part 

'Tis better to give than receive?

[MedicineHatCanuck]

I assume this thread has become a "Benning better sell at the deadline thread" right?

[Nuxfanabroad]

2 hours ago, riffraff said:

Third rate blogger gonna third rate blog.

Yes it's probably some wannabe-GM, & doesn't amount to much.

That said, the team likely tries to monitor fan feelings, & this partly factors into their decisions. All of these blogs, articles & opinions perhaps firmly reflect the majority of fans are now enjoying & encouraging this transition to youth.

The org needs the patience & discipline to see this through. If they're phasing it over 2 to 3 campaigns(apparently), it could be argued this is the best route.

[soshified]

1 hour ago, stawns said:

I'd be fine moving both edler and tanev

Keep Tanev, move Edler, and resign Hamhuis for a hometown discount.

Hutton - Tanev
Hamhuis - Bartkowski
Pedan - Sbisa

[Fozzy]

I've been a supporter of tank nation all season and hoping to trade most vets not named Sedin. However the past few days I've been leaning towards keeping Burrows for a couple of reasons.

1) is pretty obvious he won't get that much of a return, I mean if you're offered a 5th for him do you take it.

2) To me he seems the link between the vets and the young guys, the guy who keeps morale up in the dressing room when things are going wrong on the ice. He's still a great PK-er and his work ethic is still top notch. 

I think the second option outweighs the first so I would keep him.

Hamhuis, Prust, Vrbata should be the ones to go at the deadline.

 

 

[aGENT]

40 minutes ago, LarsEller said:

It's seems that we disagree on Edler so our opinions on the the left D depth isn't going to find a common ground.

Why not? Even if we move Edler (regardless of his worth) and replace him via UFA, we have plenty of left D depth.

[aGENT]

6 minutes ago, soshified said:

Keep Tanev, move Edler, and resign Hamhuis for a hometown discount.

Hutton - Tanev
Hamhuis - Bartkowski
Pedan - Sbisa

That D is worse than what we have now. And what we have now isn't terribly amazing.

[BeefcakeBo]

7 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Why not? Even if we move Edler (regardless of his worth) and replace him via UFA, we have plenty of left D depth.

If we move Edler and Hamhuis we have 2 3rd Pair Left D and a couple rookie ahl call ups. That's not good enough if we want to be competitive. We are still going to have to sign players to full those spots.  

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, LarsEller said:

If we move Edler and Hamhuis we have 2 3rd Pair Left D and a couple rookie ahl call ups. That's not good enough if we want to be competitive. We are still going to have to sign players to full those spots.  

UFA

[BeefcakeBo]

4 minutes ago, J.R. said:

UFA

Which is why I said resign Hamhuis. He's a capable top 4 and will be on a better contract. Gives us more flexibility to get a top pair guy. Maybe you missed that. 

[aGENT]

Just now, LarsEller said:

Which is why I said resign Hamhuis. He's a capable top 4 and will be on a better contract. Gives us more flexibility to get a top pair guy. Maybe you missed that. 

UFA, Sbisa, Hutton, Bartowski, Pedan, Tryamkin...is plenty of left depth. We're better off spending Hamhuis' money on that UFA lefty AND shoring up our right D depth. Still no need for Hamhuis.

 

[WHL rocks]

I hope all the UFAs get traded. Even if JB wants to keep Hamhuis he should trade him for a pick and prospect and sign him on the summer as UFA. 

That's exactly what Don Maloney did last year at the deadline with Vermette and Michalek He may sign Yandle back this summer. Got a huge haul for the rebuild in the process. 

[BeefcakeBo]

Just now, J.R. said:

UFA, Sbisa, Hutton, Bartowski, Pedan, Tryamkin...is plenty of left depth. We're better off spending Hamhuis' money on that UFA lefty AND shoring up our right D depth. Still no need for Hamhuis.

 

It's fine if you don't get it. Bartowski is gone. Pedan and Trymakin are going straight to Utica. That's call up depth. Not contending defensive core. We are going to have to sign at least  2. The only ones we have at this point are Tanev, Edler, Sbisa and Hutton. If we can dump Edler for a guy like Harmonic or Barrie we need 2 more D. If you want to do anything in the playoffs those can't be Bartkowski type players or ahl call ups. You keep a guy like Hamhuis on a bargain contract and overpay for a guy like Buf or Yandle. 

[VIC_CITY]

37 minutes ago, Fozzy said:

I've been a supporter of tank nation all season and hoping to trade most vets not named Sedin. However the past few days I've been leaning towards keeping Burrows for a couple of reasons.

1) is pretty obvious he won't get that much of a return, I mean if you're offered a 5th for him do you take it.

2) To me he seems the link between the vets and the young guys, the guy who keeps morale up in the dressing room when things are going wrong on the ice. He's still a great PK-er and his work ethic is still top notch. 

I think the second option outweighs the first so I would keep him.

Hamhuis, Prust, Vrbata should be the ones to go at the deadline.

While I mostly agree with # 2 (although "top notch effort" doesn't seem to be cutting it anymore), $4.5M is just way too much money for that. I'm sure we could buy some cheap character in the UFA pool if needed. $4.5M is reserved for top 6 forwards and top 4 d men.

 

[aGENT]

Just now, LarsEller said:

It's fine if you don't get it. Bartowski is gone. Pedan and Trymakin are going straight to Utica. That's call up depth. Not contending defensive core. We are going to have to sign at least  2. The only ones we have at this point are Tanev, Edler, Sbisa and Hutton. If we can dump Edler for a guy like Harmonic or Barrie we need 2 more D. If you want to do anything in the playoffs those can't be Bartkowski type players or ahl call ups. You keep a guy like Hamhuis on a bargain contract and overpay for a guy like Buf or Yandle. 

I think we re-sign Bart personally as a 6/7 guy depending on who else we end up picking up. Pedan is waiver eligible and will be one of our 7/8 guys. Tryamkin is a huge question mark and I never said he'd be on the NHL roster, notice he was 6th on that lefty list (teams don't carry 12 D FWIW  )

You think we're contending next year....? 

[Boddy604]

I think Prust and probably Weber or Bartkowski are the only guarantees to be moved at or before the deadline. Benning will want to recoup the pick he gave up in the Kassian trade and Prust hasn't exactly been a huge factor for Vancouver in anything. In regards to Weber and Bartkowski, Biega has secured himself a spot on the team so Hamhuis returning will push one of those 2 out before he returns and I'm betting Benning would prefer to trade one over exposing them to waivers. Vrbata will only go if the return is substantial. Benning won't dump him for peanuts with Aquilini demanding playoff revenue. He's trying to keep his job. Not sure a long term injured Hamhuis will have much value. Like Vrbata, he's only going if the return is big. Burrows stays, guaranteed. A 4.5 million dollar NTC on pace for 21 points, a whopping 2 even strength goals, and a minus 20 isn't going to have GM's banging down the door to aquire. Especially with a year remaining. If he is moved, it won't be till the offseason at the absolute earliest.