Recommended Posts

Important news on the Quinn Hughes front.

 

Not sure by the information but Ryan Biech is often the stats/information CBA guy so take it for what its worth, looks like Quinn could be saved from expansion draft.  I highly see the chance that the Canucks management will enforce this on coaching staff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

Important news on the Quinn Hughes front.

 

Not sure by the information but Ryan Biech is often the stats/information CBA guy so take it for what its worth, looks like Quinn could be saved from expansion draft.  I highly see the chance that the Canucks management will enforce this on coaching staff.

I think it was @SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME who explained that because QH turns 20 in 2019, any one pro game counts as a year played and thus he would have to be protected. All too much for my little brain. Both SID and Biech are very reliable sources ! ( I may have this all bass ackwards ! )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

Important news on the Quinn Hughes front.

 

Not sure by the information but Ryan Biech is often the stats/information CBA guy so take it for what its worth, looks like Quinn could be saved from expansion draft.  I highly see the chance that the Canucks management will enforce this on coaching staff.

Hughes would always have been saved from the expansion draft, it was just a matter of potentially losing Stecher or Hutton or some one like that. Hopefully it is 11 games or fewer to be exempt. Seems like an odd number. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:

Hughes would always have been saved from the expansion draft, it was just a matter of potentially losing Stecher or Hutton or some one like that. Hopefully it is 11 games or fewer to be exempt. Seems like an odd number. 

...it's 10 games or under...but I am not sure it would apply to Quinn/college kids....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

 

Hughes, if signed to a 2018-19 SPC (ELC) in 2019, will be considered “age 20” because he turns 20 in calendar 2019.

Thanks @SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME ........much appreciated ! The quote from SN 650 appears to show Biech referring to QH ( if he signs ) playing less than 11 games to keep his exemption from the ED. That's the part I'm finding a tad confusing. Your breakdown of the exemption rules seems to leave no doubt that one game would trigger the need for QH to be protected (......and makes totally logical sense ! )

 

 

11 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

 

But for age 20 and over, a professional year is a single game or more played in a pro league while under contract for that season

1 hour ago, N7Nucks said:
2 hours ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

Important news on the Quinn Hughes front.

 

Not sure by the information but Ryan Biech is often the stats/information CBA guy so take it for what its worth, looks like Quinn could be saved from expansion draft.  I highly see the chance that the Canucks management will enforce this on coaching staff.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Biech has said basically the same thing as me, regarding Hughes and expansion, in several previous articles:

 

https://theathletic.com/702802/2018/12/10/projecting-who-the-canucks-will-protect-in-the-seattle-expansion-draft-version-1-0/

 

https://theathletic.com/639815/2018/11/09/taking-measure-of-how-the-canucks-might-approach-the-expansion-draft/

 

https://canucksarmy.com/2018/03/27/gaudette-dahlen-and-the-expansion-draft/

 

Basically, a professional year is 10 or more NHL games when you’re talking about 18 and 19 year olds.

 

But for age 20 and over, a professional year is a single game or more played in a pro league while under contract for that season.

 

Hughes, if signed to a 2018-19 SPC (ELC) in 2019, will be considered “age 20” because he turns 20 in calendar 2019.

 

Age here is determined using rules that are similar to those used to determine slide eligibility. Since Hughes will turn 20 before the end of calendar 2019, he would be deemed “age 20” for any contract signed in 2019. And so he’d be an “age 20 or older player,” when it comes to expansion and professional years, should he sign and play at the end of the 2018-19 season (even though he’d only be 19 years old at the time).

 

Should Hughes appear in a single pro game this seaon, while under contract, then 2018-19 will be considered his first professional year.

 

This is why Biech has Hughes on the protected list for his mock expansion draft. Assuming he signs at the end of this season, and gets a few games played in Vancouver, then he’ll be expansion draft eligible and need to be protected.

 

We know from the last expansion draft when players like Kyle Baun (and age 20 or over player) were eligible for the draft. Baun burned his first professional year from playing only 3 games for Chicago at the end of 2014-15, after leaving college to go pro.

ATO with Utica for their playoff push and run would be ideal, but will never happen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SingleThorn said:

Thanks @SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME ........much appreciated ! The quote from SN 650 appears to show Biech referring to QH ( if he signs ) playing less than 11 games to keep his exemption from the ED. That's the part I'm finding a tad confusing. Your breakdown of the exemption rules seems to leave no doubt that one game would trigger the need for QH to be protected (......and makes totally logical sense ! )

 

 

 

Yeah, that 11 games makes no sense to me, unless the guy from SN650 typing the tweet pressed one twice by accident.

 

It would also be a significant departure from everything Biech has said previously.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if we are being honest. Even if he needs to be protected we aren't really at risk of losing a big time d-man. Would be nice to protect an extra 5/6 D-man but if not, oh well we'll make do.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stawns said:

ATO with Utica for their playoff push and run would be ideal, but will never happen.

Utica ATO for Hughes and a trade and re-sign of Edler.

 

Oh to have all the cakes and eat them too :lol:;)

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just asking...….we know Hughes can play both LD and RD...…..on a scale of 1 to 10

What would you rank him playing LD and what would you rank him playing RD

Anyone have a valued opinion on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really curious if a 

 

Edler....Hughes       a real 1/2

Hutton....Tanev       a pretty decent 3/4

 

Top 4 would work?

 

LHD Juolevi/Pouliot/Briseboise……………...Gudbranson/Stecher/Biega…….. for 5/6/7?

 

Or a lot easier and cheaper getting a 5/6 Dman out of UFA....if needed

 

It sure would help our re-building process, if it worked well....especially if we could use the extra money on a LWer (Panarin, Stone etc....)

 

You know there is just so many possibilities!:picard:

Edited by janisahockeynut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Really curious if a 

 

Edler....Hughes       a real 1/2

Hutton....Tanev       a pretty decent 3/4

 

Top 4 would work?

 

LHD Juolevi/Pouliot/Briseboise……………...Gudbranson/Stecher/Biega…….. for 5/6/7?

 

Or a lot easier and cheaper getting a 5/6 Dman out of UFA....if needed

 

It sure would help our re-building process, if it worked well....especially if we could use the extra money on a LWer (Panarin, Stone etc....)

 

You know there is just so many possibilities!:picard:

OJ will be in the top 4 for the Canucks by the time they are a REAL contender again.   Feel free to quote this and ram it back at me but I reserve the right to be perhaps one of a very few who has touted this special player from even before he was drafted.   He is so severely underrated on CDC.

 

As far as where QH plays, I think it depends more on his pairing partner than it does on QH.   Some guys can play with someone on their off-hand and some cannot.   I see someone like Hutton or Edler doing "ok" with it but someone like DP doing better.    

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

OJ will be in the top 4 for the Canucks by the time they are a REAL contender again.   Feel free to quote this and ram it back at me but I reserve the right to be perhaps one of a very few who has touted this special player from even before he was drafted.   He is so severely underrated on CDC.

 

As far as where QH plays, I think it depends more on his pairing partner than it does on QH.   Some guys can play with someone on their off-hand and some cannot.   I see someone like Hutton or Edler doing "ok" with it but someone like DP doing better.    

Hey Rob I really appreciate your responding to,  if he can play right side well....

 

It sure does open up possibilities, doesn't it...…...

 

I mean, it automatically allows JB to pick a defenseman for either side, and not worry about it......if that is what he chooses

 

Good hearing from you.....Happy New Year Bud!

 

Always appreciate your comments!

 

PS.I agree with you on Juolevi......so we are probably going to sink or swim on the same raft!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the rumour true that the Canucks wanted to pull Hughes from Michigan early? I heard this, then then never heard anything more about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, messier's_elbow said:

Is the rumour true that the Canucks wanted to pull Hughes from Michigan early? I heard this, then then never heard anything more about it. 

Heard the same. But seemed so unlikely. I mean, I get how the Canucks would want him here, but did they really expect Q to just bail on his Michigan teammates mid-season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2019 at 12:21 PM, N7Nucks said:

Well, if we are being honest. Even if he needs to be protected we aren't really at risk of losing a big time d-man. Would be nice to protect an extra 5/6 D-man but if not, oh well we'll make do.

We will only be able to protect 3 D, I understand, and spots will be taken by those with NTCs.  That might include Edler and Tanev - if we do not trade either of them.  In addition, based on his play, Hutton should be protected.  That creates a squeeze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ray_Cathode said:

We will only be able to protect 3 D, I understand, and spots will be taken by those with NTCs.  That might include Edler and Tanev - if we do not trade either of them.  In addition, based on his play, Hutton should be protected.  That creates a squeeze.

Only players with NMC's have to be protected. We have no d-men that currently would have to be protected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.