Chalky Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 I hope he re-signs here for a contract that reflects his future play as he continues to age and loses foot speed. Call it a hometown discount, call it whatever you like, but I hope Hammer retires a Canuck. He has 2 decent years and maybe 2 declining years left, 4 years, 16 mil. The trade I keep reading/hearing about is with Washington, they need to gear up for a run and Hammer played for Trotz in Nashville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 6 minutes ago, Zedlee said: I hope they trade him. Get a high draft pick or young prospect...anything. The complication of course is that Hammy doesn't have to go anywhere, with his NTC. If I were Hamhuis's agent I'd only agree to a trade if there was a contract extention in it, as part of the deal. Like the Bieksa trade to Anaheim - I believe the Ducks verbally agreed to extend Bieksa before the deal was done, that's why BXA agreed to waive. Would we rather have a guy like Madison (I really hate that name. It sounds like a fricken tennis player.) Bowey, or a late first round pick in the coming draft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIC_CITY Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Just so everyone is clear - Hammer could easily get $12M over 3 years as a UFA, so if he were to re-sign here (or come back after being traded), it would be for somewhere in the same ballpark as what Sbisa is getting paid. I'd say the best hometown discount we're going to get is $10M over 3 years. Or maybe 2 years at $7M if he'd be willing to accept less term. But he won't be accepting a dime less. So for those of you throwing out these $2M or $2.5 contract suggestions, it ain't gonna happen. There's also the very real possibility that Hamhuis gets traded to a contender and has a great playoffs, thus raising his UFA value. So I just wanted to throw a reality check out there to a few people. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Can Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 I think Hammer's value is much higher to Vancouver than it is to most other teams. If you had to blame one aspect of this team for why it isn't a playoff team right now, you'd have to say it's our D. It's easily in the bottom 10 in the league, if not bottom 5. I know, we need to get younger and get some picks or prospects but I see an issue with getting rid of one of our most reliable Dmen. Not because he's our best Dman (although you could make a case for it) but because of his steadiness, his experience, and his presence. Look at a team like Edmonton. All the young talented players you could ask for. So why haven't they been winning over the last few seasons? They've always lacked a steady, experienced environment to surround their young guys. Especially around their D. And when you don't have a good D, your forwards don't get the puck as much, or in as good of situations. So it doesn't matter if you have 5 first overall picks (or however many they have now, I've lost track), they're going to have a hard time scoring. Obviously they should be taking offers on Hammer, but unless you can get something great in return, he's worth keeping around. Guys like Hutton and Biega, and any other young upcoming D are going to need a steady, experienced, reliable leader to help them along. Hammer's really our only D that fits that. There's also the issue of his NTC. Some think he'll just wave it, and if he doesn't he must hate Vancouver or something. They guy has a family to think about before he thinks about hockey. He's not going to want to up root his family at this time of year, and I really doubt he'll want to move away from them until the end of the season either. He's a BC boy, and likely love's it here. He's got every reason to want to stay. Wouldn't surprise me to see him want to resign here, even at a pay cut. Maybe he does waive it, but I think he has good reason not too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Luongo was traded. Kesler was traded. Bieksa was traded. they are barely mentioned around here anymore............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Well Edler is going to be gone for a few weeks, this might change the situation with Hamhuis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 8 minutes ago, ice orca said: Well Edler is going to be gone for a few weeks, this might change the situation with Hamhuis. $&!#ty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniwaki Canuck Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 11 hours ago, Honky Cat said: If Edlers out for any length of time,he may not get traded.. This is what I'm afraid of. Perfect excuse to keep him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boddy604 Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 With Edler gone for the rest of the month, trading Hamhuis now would be a pure #tanknation move unfortunately. Unless we bomb anyways, I think he might be safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniwaki Canuck Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 3 hours ago, nzan said: does anyone have a theory on HOW Hammer has come back with such a vengeance? Maybe just some extra rest and rehab on other nagging stuff? I didn't think he had slowed down as much as everyone else said, but since his return he's fast! He's a great hockey player again. I hope the other team's scouts are seeing what I'm seeing (and Benning still deals him)...with the market shaping up as it is, this could be a perfect storm brewing to get a really good return. I agree that he has been plagued by a lot of nagging stuff in the past few years that has made him look over the hill at times, even though he's been his old reliable self at others and has looked really good, as he does now and did at the Olympics. He's also had to carry some pretty sub-standard partners at times. Maybe his current form is also about making a statement to Benning and other GMs. Even a humble guy like him has some pride and maybe this is how he shows it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 20 minutes ago, ice orca said: Well Edler is going to be gone for a few weeks, this might change the situation with Hamhuis. edler is out 3 weeks, the canucks lose games until the deadline. if anything, it INCREASES the likelihood of hamhuis being moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, tas said: edler is out 3 weeks, the canucks lose games until the deadline. if anything, it INCREASES the likelihood of hamhuis being moved. Nice graphic btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 the canucks have 8 games before the deadline. realistically, management will need to make a decision about their approach to the deadline by game 6 at the latest, which would leave them with a week to negotiate trades should that be the course of action they choose. of those six games, 3 are against divisional teams and another 2 are against teams that are currently ahead of them in the wildcard race. if they go 3-3 or worse in those 6 games, they need to move tradeable assets, unless the offers they receive are nowhere close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Crabcakes said: If they trade Hamhuis, they will have to replace him with a free agent at a higher cost. I would expect the difference for an equivalent quality player to be $2M or more. Hamhuis has already said that he would take less money to re-sign. Bieksa was in a similar situation and was extended for 2 @ $4M per. I thought he made out like a bandit. They would still be in a position where they need to find a top 4 D-man who can play the right side. Who cares if they have to sign a free agent dman at a higher cost if that dman is younger and performing better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curmudgeon Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 11 minutes ago, riffraff said: Who cares if they have to sign a free agent dman at a higher cost if that dman is younger and performing better? Yeah? There are four upcoming UFA defencemen who make more than Hamhuis: Brian Campbell (36 years old) $7.142 million. Keith Yandle (29) $5.75 million. Alex Goligoski (30) $4.8 million. Dan Boyle (39) $4.5 million. Since only Goligoski and Yandle fit your criteria, and both will be hot commodities if they even make it to July 1st without signing, who else did you have in mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinnymack Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 He loves playing in Vancouver and wants to stay according to sources, but if he is willing to move to better the team we can probably get a high pick for him and maybe even a prospect as well. And since he's free agent off season he can just resign back with us, both win he gets a chance at a cup and things we need for our future. On top of that when he resigns we will likely even have a better team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, Curmudgeon said: Yeah? There are four upcoming UFA defencemen who make more than Hamhuis: Brian Campbell (36 years old) $7.142 million. Keith Yandle (29) $5.75 million. Alex Goligoski (30) $4.8 million. Dan Boyle (39) $4.5 million. Since only Goligoski and Yandle fit your criteria, and both will be hot commodities if they even make it to July 1st without signing, who else did you have in mind? I said "if".... but I would be ok with yandle and there is a possibility of a trade involving hamonic though slim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMelvin Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Ugh this is what I was afraid of....Hamhuis played a good game last night....sigh His play before the injury was so bad I wanted his head on a pike. I stated that he better not start playing good to get an extension and then go back to his old ways...if and ONLY IF he resigns here I want this NTC or NMC taken out of his contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 28 minutes ago, Curmudgeon said: Yeah? There are four upcoming UFA defencemen who make more than Hamhuis: Brian Campbell (36 years old) $7.142 million. Keith Yandle (29) $5.75 million. Alex Goligoski (30) $4.8 million. Dan Boyle (39) $4.5 million. Since only Goligoski and Yandle fit your criteria, and both will be hot commodities if they even make it to July 1st without signing, who else did you have in mind? Why would we want to lock in a senior citizen D man when are new core will not be competing for 3-4 yrs. We want young D man not guys that get the seniors discount at Denny's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
higgyfan Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 1 hour ago, riffraff said: Who cares if they have to sign a free agent dman at a higher cost if that dman is younger and performing better? Or...they trade Hamhuis + Gaunce for Honka. Pick up Demers in the off season. Edler Demers Hutton Tanev Sbisa Honka Biega/Pedan With Edler and Suter out, there's no way this team will be making the playoffs. Hamhuis' departure results in a top 5 pick. Rebuild quickening! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.