Ben Hutton: Do We Really Need Him?

[bp79]

11 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

You clearly have me mixed up with another poster because I haven't suggested trading Edler to Dallas once. 

 

I may be wrong but I'm still waiting for a black and white answer of what constitutes an AHL season if they do count. Apparently William Nylander's 37 games don't count. So if you have the answer to my question, please share.

I think he has to play 40, but I could be wrong.

[Baggins]

2 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

Explain this one for me:

 

William Nylander

1.5 seasons in the AHL

1.5 seasons in the NHL

 

Exempt

 

First and second year NHL'ers are exempt is my understanding.

[mll]

2 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

You clearly have me mixed up with another poster because I haven't suggested trading Edler to Dallas once. 

 

I may be wrong but I'm still waiting for a black and white answer of what constitutes an AHL season if they do count. Apparently William Nylander's 37 games don't count. So if you have the answer to my question, please share.

A player is exempt if he has played 2 pro-years or less.  A pro-year only counts if the player is under a NHL contract.  Panarin is exempt because this was only his 2nd season with a NHL contract. 

 

For a teenager a pro-year is 10 NHL games and only NHL games.  Nylander was under an ELC when he played in the SHL and in the AHL as a 18 year old but these games are not considered a pro-year because not NHL games.  

 

For players 20 and older a pro-year is only one game in any professional league (NHL, AHL, SHL, etc) on a NHL contract.  

 

Hutton played 4 games in Utica as a 22 year old on a PTO in April 2015 - that doesn't count as a pro-year because it's not a NHL contract.  Lindell was signed as a 20 year old and loaned to Liiga in 2014/15 - that season counts as a pro-year because it's an ELC and he was 20 and not a teenager.

 

[VIC_CITY]

10 hours ago, mll said:

A player is exempt if he has played 2 pro-years or less.  A pro-year only counts if the player is under a NHL contract.  Panarin is exempt because this was only his 2nd season with a NHL contract. 

 

For a teenager a pro-year is 10 NHL games and only NHL games.  Nylander was under an ELC when he played in the SHL and in the AHL as a 18 year old but these games are not considered a pro-year because not NHL games.  

 

For players 20 and older a pro-year is only one game in any professional league (NHL, AHL, SHL, etc) on a NHL contract.  

 

Hutton played 4 games in Utica as a 22 year old on a PTO in April 2015 - that doesn't count as a pro-year because it's not a NHL contract.  Lindell was signed as a 20 year old and loaned to Liiga in 2014/15 - that season counts as a pro-year because it's an ELC and he was 20 and not a teenager.

 

Thanks. Defintely the most detailed explanation yet. 

[Mattrek]

Hutton will bounce back this year. The sophomore slump always gets new D-men. I'm not worried, he's a gem.

[Horvats_Big_Head]

I can’t believe how wrong I was... Hutton has regressed this year and doesn’t appear to be in our future plans....the door is closing fast on him here.

[Bertuzzi44ever]

Ben Hutton could still crack ANY teams ....farm club.

[Bertuzzi44ever]

1 hour ago, Horvats_Big_Head said:

I can’t believe how wrong I was... Hutton has regressed this year and doesn’t appear to be in our future plans....the door is closing fast on him here.

He regressed  early on last year.

[Hairy Kneel]

Should have been a 2 way contract, he should be in Utica at a quarter the cost.

[Gnarcore]

I just think he needs a fresh start.  

[Bertuzzi44ever]

On 6/6/2017 at 1:19 PM, Mattrek said:

Hutton will bounce back this year. The sophomore slump always gets new D-men. I'm not worried, he's a gem.

How did that prediction work out for ya

[rekker]

Ben has really disappointed this year. Hindsight is 2020 but I wish we exposed him and kept Sbisa. As it is i would try to resign Sbisa and see if we can clear Hutton through waivers to Utica in the fall. I don't think he would get claimed.

[bloodycanuckleheads]

This is a tough one... 

 

1.  Our defense is HORRIBLE, so we literally need everyone we can get.

2.  Being 22.5 years old when he played his first game as a Canuck (after finishing 3 years of college), we know exactly how good he's going to be.  Unlike the younger players, he isn't really going to improve too much.  What you see is what you get.  Which means we should have traded him 1.5 years ago (when he was worth something).  But, like always, we fall in love with our players and never trade them until their value plummets.

3.  We have a ton of players (who aren't quite NHL-quality) and not enough roster spots, so we should be packaging groups of them to get a single, decent player.  But, again, we always wait too long to do it.  And no one wants our trash.  It's much easier to dump trash when you're an east-coast team (or a winning team).

4.  Hutton has very little trade-value left.

5.  He will probably play better next year.

6.  He wasn't that bad this year, despite what the coach seems to think.  Of course, he wasn't that great either.

7.  He's not the kind of d-man you win the Cup with.  He doesn't hurt/punish the opposition.  And his offense isn't as strong as we've been led to believe.

8.  Our defense desperately needs to get bigger/better.

9.  His advanced-stats are actually decent.

10.  We have pretty much no one to replace him with.

[Boudrias]

3 hours ago, bloodycanuckleheads said:

This is a tough one... 

 

1.  Our defense is HORRIBLE, so we literally need everyone we can get.

2.  Being 22.5 years old when he played his first game as a Canuck (after finishing 3 years of college), we know exactly how good he's going to be.  Unlike the younger players, he isn't really going to improve too much.  What you see is what you get.  Which means we should have traded him 1.5 years ago (when he was worth something).  But, like always, we fall in love with our players and never trade them until their value plummets.

3.  We have a ton of players (who aren't quite NHL-quality) and not enough roster spots, so we should be packaging groups of them to get a single, decent player.  But, again, we always wait too long to do it.  And no one wants our trash.  It's much easier to dump trash when you're an east-coast team (or a winning team).

4.  Hutton has very little trade-value left.

5.  He will probably play better next year.

6.  He wasn't that bad this year, despite what the coach seems to think.  Of course, he wasn't that great either.

7.  He's not the kind of d-man you win the Cup with.  He doesn't hurt/punish the opposition.  And his offense isn't as strong as we've been led to believe.

8.  Our defense desperately needs to get bigger/better.

9.  His advanced-stats are actually decent.

10.  We have pretty much no one to replace him with.

That is the bottom line. Hutton is not close to 300 games yet. He likely gets next fall to turn things around.

[lmm]

3 hours ago, bloodycanuckleheads said:

This is a tough one... 

 

1.  Our defense is HORRIBLE, so we literally need everyone we can get.

2.  Being 22.5 years old when he played his first game as a Canuck (after finishing 3 years of college), we know exactly how good he's going to be.  Unlike the younger players, he isn't really going to improve too much.  What you see is what you get.  Which means we should have traded him 1.5 years ago (when he was worth something).  But, like always, we fall in love with our players and never trade them until their value plummets.

3.  We have a ton of players (who aren't quite NHL-quality) and not enough roster spots, so we should be packaging groups of them to get a single, decent player.  But, again, we always wait too long to do it.  And no one wants our trash.  It's much easier to dump trash when you're an east-coast team (or a winning team).

4.  Hutton has very little trade-value left.

5.  He will probably play better next year.

6.  He wasn't that bad this year, despite what the coach seems to think.  Of course, he wasn't that great either.

7.  He's not the kind of d-man you win the Cup with.  He doesn't hurt/punish the opposition.  And his offense isn't as strong as we've been led to believe.

8.  Our defense desperately needs to get bigger/better.

9.  His advanced-stats are actually decent.

10.  We have pretty much no one to replace him with.

Our defense is horrible

         Who are the coaches?

Our defense is horrible

        Who is his D-partner?

Our defense is horrible

        Are his D-partners progressing?

Our defense is horrible

       Who are the coaches?

Our defense is horrible

       is Stetcher next years Ben Hutton?

[mll]

7 hours ago, bloodycanuckleheads said:

This is a tough one... 

 

1.  Our defense is HORRIBLE, so we literally need everyone we can get.

2.  Being 22.5 years old when he played his first game as a Canuck (after finishing 3 years of college), we know exactly how good he's going to be.  Unlike the younger players, he isn't really going to improve too much.  What you see is what you get.  Which means we should have traded him 1.5 years ago (when he was worth something).  But, like always, we fall in love with our players and never trade them until their value plummets.

3.  We have a ton of players (who aren't quite NHL-quality) and not enough roster spots, so we should be packaging groups of them to get a single, decent player.  But, again, we always wait too long to do it.  And no one wants our trash.  It's much easier to dump trash when you're an east-coast team (or a winning team).

4.  Hutton has very little trade-value left.

5.  He will probably play better next year.

6.  He wasn't that bad this year, despite what the coach seems to think.  Of course, he wasn't that great either.

7.  He's not the kind of d-man you win the Cup with.  He doesn't hurt/punish the opposition.  And his offense isn't as strong as we've been led to believe.

8.  Our defense desperately needs to get bigger/better.

9.  His advanced-stats are actually decent.

10.  We have pretty much no one to replace him with.

3.  Why would another team want 2 lesser players for a better player at likely a higher cap hit combined.  

It's really not the same as a team trading for 2 prospects (re unknown potential) for a proven player. 

 

Hutton has a cap hit of close to 3M.  He is no longer waiver exempt.  Any team trading for him would have to develop him in the NHL.  If they decide to ultimately waive him he'll still count for 1.8M on their books.  It's hard to imagine any interest.

[Baggins]

7 hours ago, bloodycanuckleheads said:

This is a tough one... 

 

1.  Our defense is HORRIBLE, so we literally need everyone we can get.

2.  Being 22.5 years old when he played his first game as a Canuck (after finishing 3 years of college), we know exactly how good he's going to be.  Unlike the younger players, he isn't really going to improve too much.  What you see is what you get.  Which means we should have traded him 1.5 years ago (when he was worth something).  But, like always, we fall in love with our players and never trade them until their value plummets.

3.  We have a ton of players (who aren't quite NHL-quality) and not enough roster spots, so we should be packaging groups of them to get a single, decent player.  But, again, we always wait too long to do it.  And no one wants our trash.  It's much easier to dump trash when you're an east-coast team (or a winning team).

4.  Hutton has very little trade-value left.

5.  He will probably play better next year.

6.  He wasn't that bad this year, despite what the coach seems to think.  Of course, he wasn't that great either.

7.  He's not the kind of d-man you win the Cup with.  He doesn't hurt/punish the opposition.  And his offense isn't as strong as we've been led to believe.

8.  Our defense desperately needs to get bigger/better.

9.  His advanced-stats are actually decent.

10.  We have pretty much no one to replace him with.

Although I see Hutton as the odd man out on the left side I disagree with the bold statement. Players can get better through experience. I don't think they peak until they're 26 to 28. Simply learning to play better can improve a players overall performance. Some learn faster than others. I don't see Hutton as a write-off, I see him as a victim of the numbers game by having better options.

[alfstonker]

It is inappropriate to start this kind of thread imo. I don't like these threads and never have done. They are usually started by someone who hasn't a clue but wants to get their knife into a particular player.

 

There are a whole lot of players I would rather part with on this team but I am not a GM or a coach so I leave it up to the guys who actually know what they are doing.

[alfstonker]

9 hours ago, bloodycanuckleheads said:

This is a tough one... 

 

1.  Our defense is HORRIBLE, so we literally need everyone we can get.

2.  Being 22.5 years old when he played his first game as a Canuck (after finishing 3 years of college), we know exactly how good he's going to be.  Unlike the younger players, he isn't really going to improve too much.  What you see is what you get.  Which means we should have traded him 1.5 years ago (when he was worth something).  But, like always, we fall in love with our players and never trade them until their value plummets.

3.  We have a ton of players (who aren't quite NHL-quality) and not enough roster spots, so we should be packaging groups of them to get a single, decent player.  But, again, we always wait too long to do it.  And no one wants our trash.  It's much easier to dump trash when you're an east-coast team (or a winning team).

4.  Hutton has very little trade-value left.

5.  He will probably play better next year.

6.  He wasn't that bad this year, despite what the coach seems to think.  Of course, he wasn't that great either.

7.  He's not the kind of d-man you win the Cup with.  He doesn't hurt/punish the opposition.  And his offense isn't as strong as we've been led to believe.

8.  Our defense desperately needs to get bigger/better.

9.  His advanced-stats are actually decent.

10.  We have pretty much no one to replace him with.

On what do you base that bald statement? Have you got some kind of NHL crystal ball - free with every Horton's Dark Roast.

No one can say something like that and expect to have any credibility on these boards. 

[Angry Goose]

What surprises me most about Ben is that for a guy that leans towards the skill side of things, he seems to have a tough time making plays with the puck in his own end.  I haven’t been watching games as of late so maybe I’ll watcg the LV game o night and see how he does.