[Rumour] Canucks express interest in UFA D Matt Hunwick

[JamesB]

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Since when did sewer become a verb?

Any noun can be verbed.

 

 

[tas]

59 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

I'm a Benning supporter, but to play devil's advocate, he lost the Linden Vey and Zack Kassian deals. So...you know...off with his head right?

how do you figure?

 

vey was traded to vancouver for a 2nd round pick which la used to pick roland mckeown (who has not played an nhl game and just finished an unspectacular year in the ahl) and was subsequently traded with a 1st rounder to carolina for andrej sekera, who played a meaningless 16 games for la, contributing virtually nothing. vey gave vancouver 116 underwhelming games.

 

winner: vancouver

 

kassian was traded with a 5th rounder to montreal for brandon prust. montreal used the 5th to select casey staum, who played in the ushl last season with statistics not worth mentioning. kassian was flipped to edmonton without ever playing a game for montreal in return for ben scrivens, who played 15 games for montreal with a goals against average over 3.  prust played 36 uninspired, lacklustre games for vancouver.

 

winner: vancouver. 

[canuktravella]

is he a right hand shot?

[Team Bagues]

2 hours ago, pluralsight said:

Surprised the Laffs would let him go, he's one of Babcock's golden boys. 

I was real surprised at how good Hunwick looked against the Caps.

Nothing wrong with him filling a gap at cheap if need be.

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, apollo said:

Hope you're right about Olli and Jake. 

Some players need more time to make the transition. It's way too early to comment on either one of their NHL trajectories.

1 minute ago, apollo said:

Me loving Sbeezus has nothing to do with the fact that he was over paid by our GM. Same goes for Miller... the guy had 0 options and Vancouver was his last choice. Should have been much less cap hit. 

Benning has since rectified his premature contract signings.

1 minute ago, apollo said:

Anyways, I really hope JB leads us to a cup in the next 3 years.

This team has nowhere to go but up now.

[VIC_CITY]

25 minutes ago, tas said:

how do you figure?

 

vey was traded to vancouver for a 2nd round pick which la used to pick roland mckeown (who has not played an nhl game and just finished an unspectacular year in the ahl) and was subsequently traded with a 1st rounder to carolina for andrej sekera, who played a meaningless 16 games for la, contributing virtually nothing. vey gave vancouver 116 underwhelming games.

 

winner: vancouver

 

kassian was traded with a 5th rounder to montreal for brandon prust. montreal used the 5th to select casey staum, who played in the ushl last season with statistics not worth mentioning. kassian was flipped to edmonton without ever playing a game for montreal in return for ben scrivens, who played 15 games for montreal with a goals against average over 3.  prust played 36 uninspired, lacklustre games for vancouver.

 

winner: vancouver. 

Hmmm...you do make a strong argument. But I guess the Benning haters look at it from an asset management stand point. We can't assume that we'd take the same players with the draft picks we traded.

 

2nd round pick > Vey (even though there's no guarantee that whoever we draft even makes it to the NHL).

 

Zack Kassian + 5th rounder > Prust

 

Hell, the 5th rounder alone was > Prust.

[PhillipBlunt]

33 minutes ago, JamesB said:

Any noun can be verbed.

I don't noun what you saying at all. You computer funny messages.

[tas]

6 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

Hmmm...you do make a strong argument. But I guess the Benning haters look at it from an asset management stand point. We can't assume that we'd take the same players with the draft picks we traded.

 

2nd round pick > Vey (even though there's no guarantee that whoever we draft even makes it to the NHL).

 

Zack Kassian + 5th rounder > Prust

 

Hell, the 5th rounder alone was > Prust.

but that's using baseless, arbitrary logic. 

 

a 3rd rounder is worth more than alex ovechkin because that feels right to me and because a 3rd rounder could turn into a hall of famer. 

[JamesB]

Re: Hunwick

 

2 hours ago, -AJ- said:

A reasonable stop gap while our young guys develop.

 

2 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Smallish, 32 year old, Toronto castoff.....pass.

 

I have a great idea.....wait for Sbisa to be put on waivers and grab Luca.

 

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

19 pts

18 minutes a night.

100ish hits and blocks.

Pretty good underlying numbers.

1.2 million last year.

Not a bad depth option.

I think the issue here is overall strategy. Personally I do not see the point in signing someone who helps the Canucks finish, say, 22nd in the league next year instead of, say, 27th in the league.

 

I would only favour signing UFAs who are young enough to potentially help the team when we might be competitive again, say 3 years down the road. That applies to Weal, who has just turned 25. It does not apply to Hunwick. At age 32 he is about the age where D-men normally begin significant age-related decline. He might be okay for the next couple of years but, beyond that, is unlikely to help the team -- and will just be in the way of what we hope are good young guys.

 

I think the only reason for signing a guy like at Hunwick would be with the hope of trading him at the deadline for a draft pick or prospect. But Benning has shown no interest in using that strategy (acquiring guys to trade them at the deadline).

 

So, yeah, Hunwick is a guy who could probably help the team next year. But I would rather get someone younger. I admit the Canuck D does not look deep right now, with Edler, Tanev, Stecher, Hutton, and Guddy assured of spots and Holm, Pedan, Beiga, McEneny, and Subban in the mix competing for the 6th and 7th spots. But I would like to see Pedan, Holm and Subban get a serious look, and Biega is a good swing man (#8 D/ #14 forward). McEneny could probably use more time in Utica.

 

As for Sbisa, I have no problem with picking him up off waivers, but if JB gives up any asset for him, I am sharpening my  pitchfork.

[-AJ-]

1 minute ago, JamesB said:

Re: Hunwick

 

 

 

I think the issue here is overall strategy. Personally I do not see the point in signing someone who helps the Canucks finish, say, 22nd in the league next year instead of, say, 27th in the league.

 

I would only favour signing UFAs who are young enough to potentially help the team when we might be competitive again, say 3 years down the road. That applies to Weal, who has just turned 25. It does not apply to Hunwick. At age 32 he is about the age where D-men normally begin significant age-related decline. He might be okay for the next couple of years but, beyond that, is unlikely to help the team -- and will just be in the way of what we hope are good young guys.

 

I think the only reason for signing a guy like at Hunwick would be with the hope of trading him at the deadline for a draft pick or prospect. But Benning has shown no interest in using that strategy (acquiring guys to trade them at the deadline).

 

So, yeah, Hunwick is a guy who could probably help the team next year. But I would rather get someone younger. I admit the Canuck D does not look deep right now, with Edler, Tanev, Stecher, Hutton, and Guddy assured of spots and Holm, Pedan, Beiga, McEneny, and Subban in the mix competing for the 6th and 7th spots. But I would like to see Pedan, Holm and Subban get a serious look, and Biega is a good swing man (#8 D/ #14 forward). McEneny could probably use more time in Utica.

 

As for Sbisa, I have no problem with picking him up off waivers, but if JB gives up any asset for him, I am sharpening my  pitchfork.

For me, the only reason to take him would be to avoid having to use Holm or Juolevi in the potential case that neither are NHL-ready. It would prevent us from having to rush them and make another Virtanen-esque mistake. If we have six defensemen who are ready to play in the NHL, then he isn't needed. I wouldn't say it's about being better, but rather about ensuring that we don't spoil our prospects.

[VIC_CITY]

5 minutes ago, tas said:

but that's using baseless, arbitrary logic. 

 

a 3rd rounder is worth more than alex ovechkin because that feels right to me and because a 3rd rounder could turn into a hall of famer. 

Apples to oranges my friend. I'm using market value as logic vs how successful other team's draft picks were.

[tas]

2 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

Apples to oranges my friend. I'm using market value as logic vs how successful other team's draft picks were.

so you're saying that more often than not a 5th rounder will play more than 36 nhl games? and more often than not a mid-late 2nd rounder will play more than 116?

 

as far as market value is concerned, benning got what the market would bear for kassian and la got what the market would bear for vey. it was exactly market value, no more, no less. 

[VIC_CITY]

Just now, tas said:

so you're saying that more often than not a 5th rounder will play more than 36 nhl games? and more often than not a mid-late 2nd rounder will play more than 116?

No, more often than not they don't. But that's not how the market value of a draft pick is established.

[JamesB]

1 minute ago, -AJ- said:

For me, the only reason to take him would be to avoid having to use Holm or Juolevi in the potential case that neither are NHL-ready. It would prevent us from having to rush them and make another Virtanen-esque mistake. If we have six defensemen who are ready to play in the NHL, then he isn't needed. I wouldn't say it's about being better, but rather about ensuring that we don't spoil our prospects.

Fair enough. I did not put Juolevi in my original list precisely because I think it would be a big mistake to rush him. The last thing he needs is to get pushed around in the NHL and hurt his confidence. Another year of getting stronger and continuing to develop his positional game, his shot, his skating, etc. in Junior is what I think would be best for him, which is the standard view for guys like him. Same with Brisebois, who should be in Utica next year.  Holm is a lot older. I agree it would not hurt him to spend some time Utica to adjust to the North American ice surface and more physical game but, at age 25 (and 6-1 and 190) it is about time to see what he can do in the NHL.

[oldnews]

16 minutes ago, JamesB said:

Re: Hunwick

 

 

 

I think the issue here is overall strategy. Personally I do not see the point in signing someone who helps the Canucks finish, say, 22nd in the league next year instead of, say, 27th in the league.

 

I would only favour signing UFAs who are young enough to potentially help the team when we might be competitive again, say 3 years down the road. That applies to Weal, who has just turned 25. It does not apply to Hunwick. At age 32 he is about the age where D-men normally begin significant age-related decline. He might be okay for the next couple of years but, beyond that, is unlikely to help the team -- and will just be in the way of what we hope are good young guys.

 

I think the only reason for signing a guy like at Hunwick would be with the hope of trading him at the deadline for a draft pick or prospect. But Benning has shown no interest in using that strategy (acquiring guys to trade them at the deadline).

 

So, yeah, Hunwick is a guy who could probably help the team next year. But I would rather get someone younger. I admit the Canuck D does not look deep right now, with Edler, Tanev, Stecher, Hutton, and Guddy assured of spots and Holm, Pedan, Beiga, McEneny, and Subban in the mix competing for the 6th and 7th spots. But I would like to see Pedan, Holm and Subban get a serious look, and Biega is a good swing man (#8 D/ #14 forward). McEneny could probably use more time in Utica.

 

As for Sbisa, I have no problem with picking him up off waivers, but if JB gives up any asset for him, I am sharpening my  pitchfork.

Projecting that a player will change a finish in the standings from 27 to 22 is pretty silly imo.  And the idea that you can assess their finish and how this would impact is pretty pretentious....

[JamesB]

I think the right way to make the comparison is, as Vic_City suggests, to look at the expected value of a draft pick, not the particular player chosen by some other team.

 

So, Vey for a 2nd round pick? A second rounder has about a 30% chance of developing into a good NHL player (and about a 50% change of spending some time in the NHL) according to most people who have done the analysis carefully. So would you rather have what Vey did for the Canucks or a second round pick. I think it is pretty close, but I would go with the pick.

 

For 5th round picks the chance of getting a good NHL player is only about 10%. The vast majority will never do anything. But compare that with Prust. In my opinion Prust did not help the team at all and we would have been better off without him. Even if he did help, what did he do -- help up finish 28th instead of 29th? And Prust was overpaid. And we also gave up Kassian. I know that the Canucks were trying to unload his contract, but they did not need to give up anything to do that and, he was have seen, Kassian was able to turn things around in Edmonton. I am not saying he was a big loss but, with hindsight, very few GMs would make that trade.

 

Another point to consider is that Benning has done a pretty good job with mid-range and late-round picks. That is his strength and he should have played to it.

[Tre Mac]

1 hour ago, tas said:

how do you figure?

 

vey was traded to vancouver for a 2nd round pick which la used to pick roland mckeown (who has not played an nhl game and just finished an unspectacular year in the ahl) and was subsequently traded with a 1st rounder to carolina for andrej sekera, who played a meaningless 16 games for la, contributing virtually nothing. vey gave vancouver 116 underwhelming games.

 

winner: vancouver

 

kassian was traded with a 5th rounder to montreal for brandon prust. montreal used the 5th to select casey staum, who played in the ushl last season with statistics not worth mentioning. kassian was flipped to edmonton without ever playing a game for montreal in return for ben scrivens, who played 15 games for montreal with a goals against average over 3.  prust played 36 uninspired, lacklustre games for vancouver.

 

winner: vancouver. 

I hate this argument.  There is no guarantee who Benning would've drafted with that pick.  Plus that 2nd could've garnered a better player on another team if he wanted to trade it away.  He lost that trade, along with the Forsling and Bonino deals.  It's no biggie, I doubt any of those trades will cripple this franchise and every GM makes mistakes from time to time.  It's all on how they rebound and Benning rebounded quite nicely last TDL.

 

I rather a GM that can scout and draft than one that can wheel and deal and we have that in Benning. 

[lmm]

2 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Since when did sewer become a verb?

been using it around the pool table since the 70s

 

[JamesB]

6 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Projecting that a player will change a finish in the standings from 27 to 22 is pretty silly imo.  And the idea that you can assess their finish and how this would impact is pretty pretentious....

I wasn't projecting. That is why I used the word "say". That means that I do not necessarily expect this to happen. In fact I doubt he would have this much impact. My point is that even if Hunwick had a pretty big effect on the standings -- something approaching the most favourable reasonable possibility -- it would still not be a good acquisition.

[Gaudette Celly]

29 minutes ago, JamesB said:

I think the issue here is overall strategy. Personally I do not see the point in signing someone who helps the Canucks finish, say, 22nd in the league next year instead of, say, 27th in the league.

Heaven help us If Benning actually does his job and improves the team.  He should then logically go out and find the worst UFA plugs out there.  Hunwick's just too good -- bring back Bartkowski.

 

Team does worse?  Incompetent, fire him.

Team does better?  Incompetent, fire him.