Nucks+Cup+♥ Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peaches Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Hamhuis, no question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
It's Bieksa's Fault Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Age: Hamhuis > Mitchell (i.e. Hamhuis wins, not Hamhuis is older) Defence: Mitchell = Hamhuis Offence: Hamhuis > Mitchell Skating: Hamhuis > Mitchell Physicality: Mitchell = Hamhuis Toughness: Mitchell > Hamhuis Ability to make linemates better: Hamhuis > Mitchell Intangibles: Mitchell = Hamhuis I'd say Hamhuis is a solid upgrade over Mitchell. Having both would be awesome, but Hamhuis is clearly the more desirable defenceman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeanBeef Posted August 16, 2012 Author Share Posted August 16, 2012 Imagine if we had a right handed version of Mitchell. Our d would be stacked. Hamhuis-Bieksa Edler-Garrison Ballard-Mitchell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PunjabiCanuck Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John.Tallhouse Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 DH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharnhayre Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Would pick Hammer... always been a fan of Mitchell and would love to see him back in a Canucks uniform again though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
votrechien Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Everything else aside, Hamhuis is 6 years younger. Willie's play will start to slip in the coming years while Hamhuis' will likely only improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrison Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Is this even a question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksFanMike Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Hammer without a doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Although I really loved Mitchell when he was here. Hamhuis has been/had a bigger impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorrcoq Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 What difference does it make? Hamhuis is here, Mitchell is gone, no way to change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kassian Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Hamhuis no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Okay so now that it's been two years since Hamhuis has taken Mitchell's spot, who do you think has/had a bigger impact on this team? Both of these guys made Bieksa look like an allstar, they are both trusted by Alain, and are great in their own end? Willie is underrated on the Kings and Hammer is underrated on the Nucks. Who would you pick out of the two? Btw I would like to add a poll but I'm on my phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10Bure14Burrows Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Please stoooopid Obviously HaMhUiS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmotamed Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Mitchell was pretty clutch. Danny is solid as well, but I think I will give it to Willie just cause of the extra reach advantage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Aerosex Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 As much as I'm a fan of Willie, Hamhuis is better or equal to him in all aspects of the game except being a mean mofo, and he's marginally smaller. A Cup win doesn't change that. Wish we had both of them...our D would be staaaacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xereau Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 How about both? I would like to have DH because of how he has played a steady, effective game for 2 straight seasons. I would like to have WM because of how he played in the 2012 SCP, and for his history with the Canucks. Something I find odd about the 'uncertainty due to concussion' arguement, on why the Canucks didnt re-sign WM, is the acquisition of Keith Ballard in the same offseason; he had suffered a very severe concussion after playing hard (and well), earning the contract for what is now his current salary. It is not a secret that since the concussion, KB has not been the same force on the ice. GMMG offered WM a one year deal at 1.8 to 2 mil, and could not match the Kings' 3.5m three year offer. GMMG took on Ballard's contract with a full 5 seasons left at 4.2mil per. This is odd. I would love to hear GMMG's comments on the seemingly contradictory gap in logic he took in retooling the Canucks' D in the 2010 offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Hammer. His defensive game is just as good as Willies was, but he also has very underrated offensive skill and vision. He also edges Willie out in the skating category. Both are great defence man, but theres a reason Hammers name has been mentioned for the Olympic team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Hamhuis, by quite a bit, but the real question is: Keith Ballard or Willie Mitchell? Or Keith Ballard or Willie Mitchell, Steve Bernier, Michael Grabner and Quinton Howden? With the salary that we took on from Ballard, we could have easily kept Mitchell. Still, it's probably the only bad trade Gillis has ever made (the jury's still out on Hodgson/Kassian). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.