Jannik Hansen-Do we need him?

[GreyHatnDart]

As much as I like Hansen I think the team has to move some players and he is a guy that could fetch a fair bit back (possibly a 2nd / 3rd depending on the team)

He is a good 3rd line guy that can play some quality PK mins and in a pinch can fill in admirably on the 2nd line but right now I'd like to think that the 3rd / 4th line might be where some prospects can slide in and get some valuable experience.

I don't disagree with you about getting the prospects in to a point, on the other hand, do we really want to roll 4 lines where 2 of them are built out of prospects? To me that is an ineffective way to do it. You take a guy like Hansen or Higgins, tried and true players that'll net you some goals, play a hard nosed hockey, and set them up with said prospects. It'll teach the prospects a little maturity on the ice, and not hang them out to dry. IMO the worst thing you can do to a player is let them make mistakes at the wrong time and cost you goals and victories. Playing any sport at any level without confidence is the worst thing you could do, especially to a young up and comer.

[Monteeun]

i do think that if Hansen stays, there are still room for young players

[Monteeun]

I don't disagree with you about getting the prospects in to a point, on the other hand, do we really want to roll 4 lines where 2 of them are built out of prospects? To me that is an ineffective way to do it. You take a guy like Hansen or Higgins, tried and true players that'll net you some goals, play a hard nosed hockey, and set them up with said prospects. It'll teach the prospects a little maturity on the ice, and not hang them out to dry. IMO the worst thing you can do to a player is let them make mistakes at the wrong time and cost you goals and victories. Playing any sport at any level without confidence is the worst thing you could do, especially to a young up and comer.

That's how Edmonton did it, and it did not go well. I still think the mix and match is the safer way to go.

Assuming everyone fulfills their potential.

Sedin Sedin Jensen

Kassian? Kesler Burrows

Higgins? Richardson Hansen

Archibald ?????? ??????

Santorelli

Lain

Schroeder? ( I know people doubt him)

Mathias?

And this all depends on who we manage to pick up during the off-season

[CanAus8]

There is a concept in finance/accounting called opportunity cost. Concerning Hansen, what else can they do with the $2.5Mil - what opportunities are lost by spending that amount of Hansen?

Add another $Mil and get Ott or Boyle or .......... etc.

The Canucks management have a lot of these sorts of decisions to make. Gillis seemed to be frozen by indecision and afraid to make a mistake. Lets hope the new management can make the hard decisions and get them right.

In my opinion, Hansen is too soft and will never get better than what he has shown. Santorelli can replace him without any loss of talent for a cheaper price.

Trade him for the best possible price before the no-trade kicks in.

[viking mama]

He's an early Burrows IMO

Hard worker, no hands, decent shot, good speed.

Honestly I'm fine with him being on the team in the third line effective checking role. Not really relying on him to produce 60+ points on the second line.

Hansen is one of those players who seems to have more focus & scores better ... while being rushed, harassed or even when on a break-away, rather than when all alone with a gaping net! I don't get that...but I still like him...he's a viking...& other than last year, where few players prospered under Torts...he's been progressing thru-out his career. He was hitting like a thunder-bolt the previous season to last & flies like the wind. I wanna keep him & see how he develops.

[Merci]

I think hes worth another shot with a new coach.

My dad noticed and said ever since he became a new dad hes sucked. Maybe he rebounds this season.

[Monteeun]

There is a concept in finance/accounting called opportunity cost. Concerning Hansen, what else can they do with the $2.5Mil - what opportunities are lost by spending that amount of Hansen?

Add another $Mil and get Ott or Boyle or .......... etc.

The Canucks management have a lot of these sorts of decisions to make. Gillis seemed to be frozen by indecision and afraid to make a mistake. Lets hope the new management can make the hard decisions and get them right.

In my opinion, Hansen is too soft and will never get better than what he has shown. Santorelli can replace him without any loss of talent for a cheaper price.

Trade him for the best possible price before the no-trade kicks in.

Santo cannot replace Hansen. They're not even the same type of players imo.

[Brocklovich]

I don't disagree with you about getting the prospects in to a point, on the other hand, do we really want to roll 4 lines where 2 of them are built out of prospects? To me that is an ineffective way to do it. You take a guy like Hansen or Higgins, tried and true players that'll net you some goals, play a hard nosed hockey, and set them up with said prospects. It'll teach the prospects a little maturity on the ice, and not hang them out to dry. IMO the worst thing you can do to a player is let them make mistakes at the wrong time and cost you goals and victories. Playing any sport at any level without confidence is the worst thing you could do, especially to a young up and comer.

Yeah I guess I was a bit vague but with the glut of 3rd line tweeners I was thinking a guy like Hansen gets moved for something for Fox or Guance to slide into the 3rd / 4th line.

Jensen should hopefully get a shot with the twins & kassian with kesler & higgins / booth if he remains, if not then burrows.

The 4th line still has Richardson, Mathais, Sestito, Schroeder etc to fill out & flesh out the roster. Now if no prospects are able to make the jump then keep him around.

Out of the movable players I think he is a guy that has some value on the market and could bring back some decent prospects.

Its not that I dont like him as a player but I cant see the same team being iced with little to no changes

[Monteeun]

Yeah I guess I was a bit vague but with the glut of 3rd line tweeners I was thinking a guy like Hansen gets moved for something for Fox or Guance to slide into the 3rd / 4th line.

Jensen should hopefully get a shot with the twins & kassian with kesler & higgins / booth if he remains, if not then burrows.

The 4th line still has Richardson, Mathais, Sestito, Schroeder etc to fill out & flesh out the roster. Now if no prospects are able to make the jump then keep him around.

Out of the movable players I think he is a guy that has some value on the market and could bring back some decent prospects.

Its not that I dont like him as a player but I cant see the same team being iced with little to no changes

for the fourth line i would throw in Archibald as well. I thought he did nicely. Also, Lain too.

We're not close to trouble just yet. If done right, we can fix ourselves.

For the bottom six, we have Mathias and Richardson as our centres with maybe Jordan, Lain and quite possibly Guance if he's ready as our depth. Also we forgot about Santorelli as our other centre and wing. Despite people screaming the sky is falling. I don't think we are in a pit just yet. We have plenty of options.

[supermanbieksa]

We don't really need him, but I wouldn't mind seeing him stay. He's a reliable third-liner. But as mentioned he's one of the players who can be moved (quite easily) to make room for younger players.

But how much is he worth in a trade if you don't package him? In my mind he's worth a mid early-mid 2nd rounder.

[Monteeun]

We don't really need him, but I wouldn't mind seeing him stay. He's a reliable third-liner. But as mentioned he's one of the players who can be moved (quite easily) to make room for younger players.

But how much is he worth in a trade if you don't package him? In my mind he's worth a mid early-mid 2nd rounder.

I feel like if he gets traded by himself, then its not really worth it. As you and many people have mentions, it might have to be in a package.

[alfstonker]

I don't think we "need" Hansen, Higgins, Alberts, Stanton, Schroeder, Dalpe, Welsh, Archibald, Sestito or Weber. None of these players are poor or are "castoffs. They could make up some attractive packages.

Add in possibly Edler and Tanev and I think a creative GM like Benning could bring back some real strength to our line up/roster.

We have some potentially good players who could break through next season, people like Lain, Zalewski, Shinkaruk, Jensen, Gaunce, Grenier, Horvat and Corrado.

Add the 3 or 4 we would bring in from trading the above and we could be in a position to make some real progress.

[ScotianLifestyle]

*Natural centre who can play wing. Hence the "more versatile" comment.

If you think about it Santorelli is more versatile than Hansen, but its just Santo and Higgy got the scoring Swagger.

[tas]

for years i was one of hansen's staunchest supporters, but somewhere along the line he stopped playing like jannik hansen and started thinking he was an offensive player. the relentless forechecking and backchecking went away, and hasn't been seen since.

if he can get back to being the hansen of 4 years ago, keep him. if not, he's dead weight.

[aGENT]

Why all this hate for Hansen?? He brings a lot of intangible aspects to winning games. It doesn't always show up in points, but he gives it his all, and does what it takes to win games. This is the exact kind of guy we need more of if this team is going to make another post-season. Do we need Jannik Hansen? Yes. Yes we do.

Do not confuse recognition of a trade-able asset with value as "hate".

Higgins - Santorelli - Hansen ... Yes I think keeping those 3 as a line for the next few years is definitely desirable.

Potentially 120 points coming from that line per year.

It is the rest of the lineup that really needs a change.

for our bottom 6 I prefer something like:

Higgins, Horvat, Santorelli

Kenins, Mathias, Richardson

[Tearloch7]

Kenins is a ready replacement for Hansen .. we NEED to make some changes to the group that has been here together long enough.

Hansen and Edler are two assets I would try to move, along with Kesler .. we need 'renewal'.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

My only concern is that Hansen picked up most of his points in those situation because he was playing 1st or 2nd line minutes .. If he is on the 3rd, or 4th line (which is where he would thrive), he would be lucky to get 25 points in a season.

That's not really true.

Hansen has produced most of his scoring when he's been playing with "3rd line" type of minutes and linemates.

In 2011-12, he produced 39 total points (16 goals, 23 assists). 33 of those were during 5-on-5 play (14 goals, 19 assists). Only 6 even strength points came with Henrik as his centreman. Only 3 points with Kesler. Hansen scored most of his 2011-12 (5v5) points alongside "3rd line" centres like Malhotra (10), Hodgson (12), and Pahlsson (7). His best partner on the wing was Higgins (13 points).

In 2012-13, Hansen's 27 total points (in 47 GP) would have projected to 47 points over 82 games. His even strength (5v5) scoring rate (points/60) was the best on the entire team. Once again, the majority of those points (23 of 27) came during 5-on-5 play. And once again, the bulk of his scoring came during "3rd line" type of usage (or elevated "2nd line" due to injury relief).

Hansen was most productive with the following forward linemates (in descending order--"with" points in parentheses): Raymond (14), Higgins (9), Schroeder (7), Ebbett (3), Roy (3), Lapierre (2), Kesler (2), Sedin (1), Sedin (1). His best centre (by far), in terms of production and performance, was Schroeder--and the Raymond-Schroeder-Hansen combo was just a dynamite 3rd line for the games they played together (they were producing "1st line" level scoring and better offense than the Sedin line).

In arguably his best statistical season (albeit one that was shortened by the lockout), Hansen scored next to nothing with our "1st and 2nd" liners.

It's very interesting to note that 2013-14 was the first season in Hansen's career where his most frequent linemates, after Higgins, were Kesler, Daniel, and Henrik, and that those "big three" were his linemates for 14 of his 17 points at (5v5) even strength.

Hansen's 2013-14 was a huge letdown (he only scored 20 total points) from his previous year, even though he was given what might be called his "best" opportunity (in playing with the Canucks' top players).

Basically, in the season when he finally did play "1st and 2nd line minutes" it turns out that his scoring actually plummeted. Until that season, Hansen had feasted off of a 3rd line role (where he had been one of the league's best for a couple seasons) that came with significant PK time (he was arguably the Canucks' #1 forward PKer until Torts took over and inexplicably slashed his PK minutes).

His best linemates have mostly been third line checkers (Malhotra), "bangers" (Torres), or "burners" (Raymond, Schroeder). The vast majority of his scoring has come when playing with these types of guys and playing these kinds of minutes.

Top-six usage has never really been a good fit for Hansen, outside of the occasional "injury relief" situation (ie: where he's filled in for a couple games with the twins or when his entire line has been elevated to play more minutes). Basically, when Hansen played in a mostly "third line" role, he gave the Canucks top-six level scoring production/efficiency (among the team's best for 2010-11 through 2012-13). When he played regularly in the top-six, his scoring rate dropped and he produced closer to bottom-six numbers.

And taking away his penalty killing role--one of Torts's (many) big mistakes last season--only compounded the problem (as Hansen's even strength game seems to feed off of his PK duties).

Hopefully a new coach will get Hansen (if he's still here) back to playing the type of game he's best suited for (and thrives at). Used as a "third line" winger (and top PKer), he should easily put-up 30-35 points/season (and he could still get back to a 40-50+ points scoring rate if things go really well). But Hansen needs to be playing a "3rd line" role (where he's been "elite" at times during 2010-13) for him to offer maximum offensive productivity and to be at his most useful (strong defensive play, energy/physicality, relentless forechecking, "speed" game, etc).

Even though he's produced, on average, like a top-six forward over the past 4-5 seasons (in terms of his points/60 efficiency at 5v5), Hansen is not well-served (or well-suited) on the Canucks first or second lines (except for temporary situations, like injuries). That's not where he's produced his best offense. And it's certainly not where he's been the best player overall.

[spook007]

That's not really true.

Hansen has produced most of his scoring when he's been playing with "3rd line" type of minutes and linemates.

In 2011-12, he produced 39 total points (16 goals, 23 assists). 33 of those were during 5-on-5 play (14 goals, 19 assists). Only 6 even strength points came with Henrik as his centreman. Only 3 points with Kesler. Hansen scored most of his 2011-12 (5v5) points alongside "3rd line" centres like Malhotra (10), Hodgson (12), and Pahlsson (7). His best partner on the wing was Higgins (13 points).

In 2012-13, Hansen's 27 total points (in 47 GP) would have projected to 47 points over 82 games. His even strength (5v5) scoring rate (points/60) was the best on the entire team. Once again, the majority of those points (23 of 27) came during 5-on-5 play. And once again, the bulk of his scoring came during "3rd line" type of usage (or elevated "2nd line" due to injury relief).

Hansen was most productive with the following forward linemates (in descending order--"with" points in parentheses): Raymond (14), Higgins (9), Schroeder (7), Ebbett (3), Roy (3), Lapierre (2), Kesler (2), Sedin (1), Sedin (1). His best centre (by far), in terms of production and performance, was Schroeder--and the Raymond-Schroeder-Hansen combo was just a dynamite 3rd line for the games they played together (they were producing "1st line" level scoring and better offense than the Sedin line).

In arguably his best statistical season (albeit one that was shortened by the lockout), Hansen scored next to nothing with our "1st and 2nd" liners.

It's very interesting to note that 2013-14 was the first season in Hansen's career where his most frequent linemates, after Higgins, were Kesler, Daniel, and Henrik, and that those "big three" were his linemates for 14 of his 17 points at (5v5) even strength.

Hansen's 2013-14 was a huge letdown (he only scored 20 total points) from his previous year, even though he was given what might be called his "best" opportunity (in playing with the Canucks' top players).

Basically, in the season when he finally did play "1st and 2nd line minutes" it turns out that his scoring actually plummeted. Until that season, Hansen had feasted off of a 3rd line role (where he had been one of the league's best for a couple seasons) that came with significant PK time (he was arguably the Canucks' #1 forward PKer until Torts took over and inexplicably slashed his PK minutes).

His best linemates have mostly been third line checkers (Malhotra), "bangers" (Torres), or "burners" (Raymond, Schroeder). The vast majority of his scoring has come when playing with these types of guys and playing these kinds of minutes.

Top-six usage has never really been a good fit for Hansen, outside of the occasional "injury relief" situation (ie: where he's filled in for a couple games with the twins or when his entire line has been elevated to play more minutes). Basically, when Hansen played in a mostly "third line" role, he gave the Canucks top-six level scoring production/efficiency (among the team's best for 2010-11 through 2012-13). When he played regularly in the top-six, his scoring rate dropped and he produced closer to bottom-six numbers.

And taking away his penalty killing role--one of Torts's (many) big mistakes last season--only compounded the problem (as Hansen's even strength game seems to feed off of his PK duties).

Hopefully a new coach will get Hansen (if he's still here) back to playing the type of game he's best suited for (and thrives at). Used as a "third line" winger (and top PKer), he should easily put-up 30-35 points/season (and he could still get back to a 40-50+ points scoring rate if things go really well). But Hansen needs to be playing a "3rd line" role (where he's been "elite" at times during 2010-13) for him to offer maximum offensive productivity and to be at his most useful (strong defensive play, energy/physicality, relentless forechecking, "speed" game, etc).

Even though he's produced, on average, like a top-six forward over the past 4-5 seasons (in terms of his points/60 efficiency at 5v5), Hansen is not well-served (or well-suited) on the Canucks first or second lines (except for temporary situations, like injuries). That's not where he's produced his best offense. And it's certainly not where he's been the best player overall.

Thanks SID for some facts regarding Hansen.

Lots of negative vibes regarding hands of stone Hansen. But the fact says differently. Playing him as a 1 or 2 line winger was total mismanagement by Tortz. He is replaceable but it would not be a disaster, if he stayed and played on the 3rd line again. In saying that, if any of the youngster are deemed ready to push on, his position in the team, would definitely be under threat...

[Vansicle]

I'd like to see him stay and play a support role; He's an awesome forechecker with the rare combination of speed and grit who can put up respectable points.

That said, he isn't a critical piece of the puzzle. There are bigger fish to fry at this point.

Could have gotten a bigger return for him if the trade were made before the start of last season. At this stage in the game, my concern is that if he's traded, what comes back? Is it a lateral move? If so, he could be that guy who can slot onto any line and contribute. Build a fourth line around him and move him up a line when players get injured.

Unless, of course you can get something for him. Which I'm not so sure you could.

[Vansicle]

for years i was one of hansen's staunchest supporters, but somewhere along the line he stopped playing like jannik hansen and started thinking he was an offensive player. the relentless forechecking and backchecking went away, and hasn't been seen since.

if he can get back to being the hansen of 4 years ago, keep him. if not, he's dead weight.

It was really only last year, as SIDISME demonstrated, and I'd be willing to guess that with his new contract and being promoted to top six that he was expected to contribute more offensively. It was erroneously assumed he would be in a better position to do so in the top six role. I'd be willing to bet if they slot him back into that 3rd line role, he'd return to the mean.