Gstank29 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Van Justin Schultz 2016 2nd Conditional 2017 3rd (base on if he resigns in Edmonton, would have been a second but their second would be going to Boston as compensation for sign Chiarelli) 2016 3rd Edmonton Dan Hamhuis Schultz is a typical Benning reclaimation project, but he also fits our need for a right handed PM defenceman. Anyways fire away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueberries Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Edmonton would probably not want Hammer and he would not want to go to the Oilers. Also I rather get a 1st and a prospect from WSH/PIT then get the stud that is Justin "Most hated man in NHL" Schultz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Too much coming from the Oil for this to be a fair trade IMO. Agree with Blueberries that I'd rather get a 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Don't see that happening. If Hammer goes anywhere, it's to a contender, and we'll be needing him back next season. Well, a top 4 dman or two from the UFA market at least, but I want Hammer in Van next season. He'll pull a Vermette, hopefully. I agree Schultz is a typical JB project, it would be awesome to get him and see if he can find his game here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowhereman Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Why do we want Justin Schultz? He's can't play defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logic Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Edmonton gives all that up for a UFA(why may end up resigning in Vancouver) to a divisional rival..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noble 6 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 If we are going to make a trade with the Oilers, we should be looking at their 1st since they don't really need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toni Zamboni Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 oh phew, i thought, Me a New One Boyz, had passed away when i saw the thread title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 The Canucks don't need soft, underachieving defensemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Vancouver doesn't want Schultz, Hamhuis doesn't want Edmonton. Of all the places Benning could ask Hamhuis to waive, Edmonton would just be insulting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van 'Nuck Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Just get a damn first and a prospect for hammer! Even analyst thinks that, that is his value and they believe washington is the best fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGCanuck Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Hey man, Schultz is a proven loser from a losing team. He is not needed nor is he wanted. Enough said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlanB Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Thanks, but no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 15 minutes ago, YEGCanuck said: Hey man, Schultz is a proven loser from a losing team. He is not needed nor is he wanted. Enough said. Yup, the Oilers have one asset (Macdavid) of any real value. I guess Nurse has value too. After that, it's over paid, over hyped soft trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilya Mikheyev Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 A Oiler's 2nd is similiar to a late 1st so it wouldn't be that far off once you throw the 3rd rounder in. Trading for Schultz is negative value though. His contract will have to be qualified, makes more sense to wait until Edmonton lets him walk so you can sign him for a fair contract. Although it seems insulting to move Hammer to EDM, I bet that's one of the team's he would most like to be moved to since it's just as close to Smithers, where his family is and why he signed with Van in the first place. Rather have a 2nd and 3rd straight up for Hammer...but more so would rather trade Hammer to a contender for a late 1st that hopefully ends up being in the early 20s. My two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 2 hours ago, Gstank29 said: Van Justin Schultz 2016 2nd Conditional 2017 3rd (base on if he resigns in Edmonton, would have been a second but their second would be going to Boston as compensation for sign Chiarelli) 2016 3rd Edmonton Dan Hamhuis Schultz is a typical Benning reclaimation project, but he also fits our need for a right handed PM defenceman. Anyways fire away Hammer would rip you a new one..... He has a NTC anyways. Schultz it too expensive (3.9) for what you get and he's too old (will be 26 in July) to unlearn what they taught him in Edmonton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goblix Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 This is just a silly proposal... edmonton has no use giving up futures for a UFA dman in hamhuis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
messier's_elbow Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Hamhuis won't go there for one. 2. I don't want Shultz. 3 why would we help Edmonton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Deal would be workable/sensible if Edmonton was in a battle for a playoff spot. This deal is much less likely to happen due to the fact that Vancouver and Edmonton Share a division, Edmonton would not want to see Schultz become a star so close to Edmonton where people would see him regularly. With Edmonton being in a situation very much like Vancouver will be in a couple of years, Dan Hamhuis wants to know why he would waive his No-Trade Clause to move away from family and friends for a team that is lower in the standings and not contending for the Stanley Cup, at his age, either he wants end up with a competitive team, or he wants to stay put. When people say they'll do whats best for the team, that doesn't mean they are going to disregard their own future to do it - if that was the case, we'd see alot more league minimum contracts(HAHAHA) Just my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanTSN Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Schultz was a fantastic prospect until he landed in Edmonton. Since, he's been awful. No progression, and in fact regression. Edmonton would welcome this trade very much, but would Hamhuis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.