Horvat-is-Schneider Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 First i'd like to say this is my first proposal try. Notes: -I feel as though we need scoring. -Youth like GMMG says... -This trade puts Philly back under cap -ALSO i feel as though its a safe trade because i think Edler will come into his form and he knows if he doesn't step up he will be gone... Anyway! To Philly Hamhuis + Gaunce + 3rd or 4th To Vancouver Voracek + Simmonds Line up: Sedin Sedin Simmonds - what sedins need Burrows Kelser Voracek - top 3 nhl second line Hansen Horvat/Richardson Booth - Higgins Santo Sestito Edler Bieksa Garrison Tanev Corrado Weber Luo Eriksson What are your thoughts, is tweaking needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
мeтpо Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 I personally wouldn't trade Hamhuis alone for that package. The Canucks would be so lost without him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 Why would we trade our best defenseman?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horvat-is-Schneider Posted August 4, 2013 Author Share Posted August 4, 2013 You can't win without scoring. Then you say "you can't win without D either" That D is solid, and the other teams won't get to our D if our forecheck keeps them in their end. See Pittsburgh 2009 Cup... Our D is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c00kies Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 If we trade Hamhuis we lose two d-men (Bieksa becomes a useless pylon). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 You can't win without scoring. Then you say "you can't win without D either" That D is solid, and the other teams won't get to our D if our forecheck keeps them in their end. See Pittsburgh 2009 Cup... Our D is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absent Canuck Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 I dont think we could ever trade Hamhuis or Garrison without their asking for it first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken kaniff Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 Hammer has a NTC and took a hometown discount. dont think you could get him to accept being traded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckswithcup Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 I would trade Bieksa before I would move Hamhuis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksFanMike Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 I personally wouldn't trade Hamhuis alone for that package. The Canucks would be so lost without him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drouin Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 That D is not solid. Weber is definitely not a top-6 defenseman, Corrado will need to be paired with a Vet. I'd rather keep Gaunce as well, unless of course we get a great deal in return. If we were to trade Hamhuis, it would be nice to acquire a d-man in return, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absent Canuck Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 First i'd like to say this is my first proposal try. To Philly Hamhuis + Gaunce + 3rd or 4th To Vancouver Voracek + Simmonds What are your thoughts, is tweaking needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 I think we would have to add to get Philly interested. Hamhuis is great but he isn't worth Voracek . Hamhuis and Gaunce is probably a little over payment. Simmonds is worth Hansen and our first in 2014. so to even it out drop the 1st So I would do Voracek + Simmonds for Hamhuis Hansen Gaunce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absent Canuck Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 You say it's probably an overpayment but then make it an overpayment., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 No I dont. Re read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 No; Hamhuis is here to stay. I'd rather trade anyone else on the team than Dan. He is the guy who keeps everything on D in place and settle. Never giving him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangoes Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 No bad trade Phily has to give up a couple of prospects or a vet dman for this deal to happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magikal Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 Hamhuis is the glue keeping the D together on this team. It's an awesome return but I just get scared thinking of our defense without him. I'd move any of the other d-men first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks#01fan Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 If we do this trade we pretty much become philly, no defence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks25 Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 1) They have no need for Gaunce, especially with Laughton coming up. 2) They are extremely high on both these players, it'll probably take Hamhuis + Gaunce to get just Voracek. It's not worth it for us. 3) Philly needs forward help. As long as their D is healthy, it's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.