Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Dan Hamhuis or Willie Mitchell


LeanBeef

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

Get a clue. Hamhuis needed Bieksa just as much, and Willie played a different role than Bieksa, both which made the pairing a successful one......but not as successful statistically as the HamJuice pairing. Bieksa's successes are as much due to the players around him as it is with his own drive, talent and abilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I think that the choice at the time was between Ballard and Mitchell. If we had Mitchell, we wouldn't have traded for Ballard and we probably would have kept Grabner and not traded for Ballard...

However, we might still have acquired Hamhuis. We got Ballard as a security policy in case we didn't get Hamhuis so we could have either had Ballard and Hamhuis or Mitchell and Hamhuis..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we were sitting here now with the option just to pick one or the other(s), then it's easy. At the time it was more like Ballard vs Mitchell (at home w/ a concussion), Bernier (making a couple mil on our 4th line), Grabner (or rather not once we lost him to waivers), and a late 1st round prospect. It was about helping us immediately when we had no certainty we could have Mitchell healthy, Hamhuis signing with us, or Grabner finally deciding to show up at camp.

It made sense from that perspective at the time, but in retrospect we could have done something different for sure.

In any event, Hamhuis is clearly better than Mitchell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...