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

Jannik Hansen's Value.


ComfyMatter

Recommended Posts

Guest Dasein

Very low IMO. I never liked him and I want him off the team. I'm surprised he's lasted as long as he has. He just doesn't bring enough to warrant a spot. He's hard working and has a good work ethic but that's not enough. We've got a lot of new players and prospects who would be upgrades on him, and I would like to see him replaced.

How could you have never liked Jannik Hansen?

The guy is a work horse and a pretty good 3rd liner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me I don't see the value of Hansen as much as I see the fact they need to upgrade on Hansen. He's been great as a checker, a 3rd or 4th liner.

Even though I criticized seeing him on the top lines far too much it wasn't his fault he got put out there.

That said, Vancouver can improve his position or give a younger player the chance.

Regardless of what he's worth I see Hansen the odd man out when it comes to a younger player filling that roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good 3rd liners don't 'ride the pine' and on a team that is aiming at rolling 3-4 lines and expecting a lot out of the 3rd line, players would likely struggle going from the press box for a 10 game stretch to 12+ minutes of 5v5 and PK hockey. In my opinion Hansen is a good 3rd line player, but not good enough to make this team so off he goes. The depth in the organization should come from players who play hockey regularly, which means promoting your best 4th liner to fill a 3rd line hole and filling his spot with someone suitable from your AHL affiliate. Realistically, Hansen is too valuable to sit on the sidelines and watch his team play.

As for his value, I'd be happy/impressed to see an early 3rd round pick in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come Playoff time does he bring what u say he does?.

No where close to the D.Kings, K.Cliffords, T.Tyfolli's etc etc etc DO.

Time to move on.

It ain't about Regular Season. PLAYOFFS is the ONLY thing that counts after 40+ years.

Hansen has become OLDNEWS my friend.........

You'll have to elaborate on everything that Kyle Clifford brings.

From here, it's not all that impressive.

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=30&s=29&f1=2013_p&f2=5v5&f5=L.A&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67

7 points in 24 playoff games, -2 with 60% offensive zone starts and some of the worst underlying numbers on the Kings.

Come playoff time what does Hansen bring?....have a look at the answer to your question.

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=30&s=30&f1=2010_p&f2=5v5&f5=VAN&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67#

That's the Cup run of 2010/11 - the largest sample we have of Hansen, who happens to be a +7 in his career in the playoffs, which, considering his situational use, is actually very impressive in context.

Yeah, he only had 9 points in 25 games... or 3 in 12 the year before.

But what folks like yourself are missing is the context of his play.

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=30&s=30&f1=2010_p&f2=5v5&f5=VAN&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67#

Hansen has some of the best underlying numbers (if not the best) on the team - 7th best corsi, while getting 36.8% offensive zone starts. Look at what the players just above him were getting - far higher, from 50 to high 60s...

Hansen plays a shutdown role - with respectable offensive production in the playoffs. Not sure what people like you expect, but propping up Kyle Clifford is not convincing.

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=30&s=29&f1=2011_p&f2=5v5&f5=VAN&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67

Pick the smaller sample playoff years - same story.

Evidently you haven't heard it all... at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say Hansen is a great third line player, ideal for any shutdown line, hard to part with these types of players.

I think the biggest problem people are having is finding spots for top 6 players they want to see make the scoring lines, IE Jensen, Vey Kassian etc etc. Or vice versa simply placing players in Hansen's spot forcing him to a fourth line role everyone knows he is over qualified for.

What this tells me is we need to upgrade via a trade, not toss an NHL caliber player away for a draft pick (gamble) simply to fit another player into the roster. That is really just foolhardy. Upgrade our defense? Forward? Prospects?, if you have an asset, use is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of fans don't understand what Hansen brings to the game. I think a lot of simpler fans (not to call out anyone specifically or anything, but people who may not understand the game as much as others) seem to think that what the team needs to look like is 3 amazing scoring lines and a 4th line that can destroy opponents. I am constantly seeing posts on how Jensen, Shinkaruk, Horvat, and Gaunce all need to be on the roster this year. A lot of people seem to think rushing our top prospects suddenly makes us a much better team because those guys are able to score. People seem to think that Jensen getting 10-12 minutes on 3rd line will be better for him than getting top line AHL minutes and improving his skillset. If you are really desperate to trade a player because they had one bad year, look no further than trading basically the entire team. Sedin's had basically the worst year of their career, Burrows was essentially useless, Edler has awful, and so on. I believe that last season, the poor coaching of Tortorella caught up to us, as well as an endless flurry of injuries. There was no consistency for this team at any point of the season, and the whole team really suffered, not just Hansen.

I am of the belief that I am Hansen's biggest fan on this site, so let me tell you all what I think. I think it would be a huge mistake to even try to trade him. He is the perfect 3rd line player, and we really don't have anyone who can replace what we would miss about his game, at this point. Down the road when our prospects develop, and he no longer fits into our long term plans, I may be alright parting with him. But right now, there is not a chance we should try to move him. It will come back to bite us.

What Hansen provides us with:

Elite forechecking and backchecking. Great vision and amazing instincts. One of the fastest players on this team. Hard work and endless effort on the ice. Decent goal scoring and passing ability, and just enough of those to make him a legitimate threat. Above average hitting. Fantastic penalty killing ability, and passable power play ability if needed to fill in. Underrated leadership.

What Hansen can improve:

Goal scoring and playmaking. Ability when the puck is on his stick. His physical game is solid, but has room for improvement.

This is what I have seen and learned from watching Hansen play during his Canucks tenure. Barring a sudden ability to score and pass, he will always be a really awesome 3rd liner, and maybe even a passable 2nd liner if needed. He is a player who is absolutely vital to the team, even though you know he is never going to put up 50 goals or anything like that. As far as his value goes, I would not like to put a draft pick on his value, because you just never know what you will find with a 2nd or 3rd round pick. If we tried to trade him, I could see a 3rd round pick and a very low end prospect as the return. It's not really fair to put him in the Dorsett convo, as different players have different values to different teams. Our 4th line looks different pretty much yearly. Getting a guy like Dorsett was an important move to get some potential long term stability in our 4th line, which is why he was worth a 3rd to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not really fair to put him in the Dorsett convo, as different players have different values to different teams. Our 4th line looks different pretty much yearly. Getting a guy like Dorsett was an important move to get some potential long term stability in our 4th line, which is why he was worth a 3rd to us.

It's interesting though to look at Dorsett and why JB and WD saw the value in him to spend a 3rd round pick.

I think Jannik has more upside and two way versatility - Hansen has approached the 30 and 40 point ranges as a 3rd liner, and has been an invaluable penalty killer and role player. It seems fairly evident to me that Hansen's market value is significantly higher, but I'm not underplaying Dorsett in saying so - the point I'm trying to make is that I'm not doubting the Canucks judgement in spending a 3rd on Dorsett, but more that folks are really underselling Hansen around here.

Dorsett has been a pretty pure role player. Through the playoffs he was a big part of what I thought was the Rags best line.

Boyle and D Moore may be more versatile in some senses, and played slightly bigger minutes 5on5 and quite a bit more shorthanded than Dorsett, but it's hard to deny what Dorsett does bring in that 10 minutes he was playing 5 on 5 on the fourth line.

If you look at is from a points or tangible statistics standpoint, he only had an assist and was -2 in 23 games.

So Dorsett doesn't really add much threat of scoring, he doesn't necessarily block a lot of shots, or kill penalties...

But if you look at his underlying numbers, it's a different story

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=30&s=29&f1=2013_p&f2=5v5&f5=NYR&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67#

In the playoffs, with 32% offensive zone starts he had a +2.5 relative corsi, and along with Boyle and Moore generated some positive territory.

I think it would be really interesting to know what else was behind JB and WD's determination to acquire him (aside from WD having coached him and knowing him). He obviously brings a certain stiffness and courage to the fourth line, has been known throughout his career (even before the NHL) to step up his intensity and game in the playoffs - and he's a different type player than what the team otherwise has in the bottom six of their depth charts, but I have a feeling there's more there that we're going to see this season.

I'm pretty excited to see what both the second line and the fourth line do this season and looking forward to seeing more of Dorsett, and hopefully a healthier Hansen. I think the Canucks are going to be a significantly more difficult team to play against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sestito is nothing more then a 13th forward...Only way Hansen is moved is if Horvat/Gaunce/Shinkaruk/whoever push their way onto the roster...His pk play and minute munching can help supplement Keslers loss

good point.

If the Canucks were to deal a guy like Hansen or Higgins, as many folks here want and suggest, that would be a pair of key penality killers subtracted from the lineup. They've added Vrbata, Bonino, Vey and Dorsett to the forward group, but aside from Vey, who may develop into an NHL pker, those other three guys are not really noted penalty killers. Which leaves a core of Richardson, Burrows, Hansen, Higgins and Matthias. Not sure you want to thin that element out much more than that at this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of fans don't understand what Hansen brings to the game. I think a lot of simpler fans (not to call out anyone specifically or anything, but people who may not understand the game as much as others) seem to think that what the team needs to look like is 3 amazing scoring lines and a 4th line that can destroy opponents. I am constantly seeing posts on how Jensen, Shinkaruk, Horvat, and Gaunce all need to be on the roster this year. A lot of people seem to think rushing our top prospects suddenly makes us a much better team because those guys are able to score. People seem to think that Jensen getting 10-12 minutes on 3rd line will be better for him than getting top line AHL minutes and improving his skillset. If you are really desperate to trade a player because they had one bad year, look no further than trading basically the entire team. Sedin's had basically the worst year of their career, Burrows was essentially useless, Edler has awful, and so on. I believe that last season, the poor coaching of Tortorella caught up to us, as well as an endless flurry of injuries. There was no consistency for this team at any point of the season, and the whole team really suffered, not just Hansen.

I am of the belief that I am Hansen's biggest fan on this site, so let me tell you all what I think. I think it would be a huge mistake to even try to trade him. He is the perfect 3rd line player, and we really don't have anyone who can replace what we would miss about his game, at this point. Down the road when our prospects develop, and he no longer fits into our long term plans, I may be alright parting with him. But right now, there is not a chance we should try to move him. It will come back to bite us.

What Hansen provides us with:

Elite forechecking and backchecking. Great vision and amazing instincts. One of the fastest players on this team. Hard work and endless effort on the ice. Decent goal scoring and passing ability, and just enough of those to make him a legitimate threat. Above average hitting. Fantastic penalty killing ability, and passable power play ability if needed to fill in. Underrated leadership.

What Hansen can improve:

Goal scoring and playmaking. Ability when the puck is on his stick. His physical game is solid, but has room for improvement.

This is what I have seen and learned from watching Hansen play during his Canucks tenure. Barring a sudden ability to score and pass, he will always be a really awesome 3rd liner, and maybe even a passable 2nd liner if needed. He is a player who is absolutely vital to the team, even though you know he is never going to put up 50 goals or anything like that. As far as his value goes, I would not like to put a draft pick on his value, because you just never know what you will find with a 2nd or 3rd round pick. If we tried to trade him, I could see a 3rd round pick and a very low end prospect as the return. It's not really fair to put him in the Dorsett convo, as different players have different values to different teams. Our 4th line looks different pretty much yearly. Getting a guy like Dorsett was an important move to get some potential long term stability in our 4th line, which is why he was worth a 3rd to us.

Well, at least you prefaced your Hansen commentary by stating you are the biggest Hansen fan around...based on your glowing scouting report on him, that is clearly evident.

Hate to break this to you, but there is nothing elite about Hansen's game.

My take on Hansen is that he's a decent third liner in the NHL...he skates well, is dependable on the forecheck and on the backcheck...does a good job on the PK...bangs around when inspired...and gives an honest effort and works hard.

He's one of those guys that is just good enough in a lot of parts of the game, but there's nothing that he actually excels at. He's gritty enough, but won't over power anyone...he agitates, but not nearly enough to drive opposing players crazy...he's got a decent shot, but isn't opportunistic or skilled enough to cash in on his chances...he's got average size...his hockey sense is below average, so he'll never be mistaken for a decent/good playmaker...put him on the second or first line and he looks like a deer caught in the headlights.

I put him in the same category as a lot of the players who stunk the joint out last season...he was trending in the right direction until he got derailed last season, so I'm sure he feels like he has a lot to prove this coming season. Hopefully that bodes well for a bounce back season for Hansen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll have to elaborate on everything that Kyle Clifford brings.

From here, it's not all that impressive.

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=30&s=29&f1=2013_p&f2=5v5&f5=L.A&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67

7 points in 24 playoff games, -2 with 60% offensive zone starts and some of the worst underlying numbers on the Kings.

Come playoff time what does Hansen bring?....have a look at the answer to your question.

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=30&s=30&f1=2010_p&f2=5v5&f5=VAN&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67#

That's the Cup run of 2010/11 - the largest sample we have of Hansen, who happens to be a +7 in his career in the playoffs, which, considering his situational use, is actually very impressive in context.

Yeah, he only had 9 points in 25 games... or 3 in 12 the year before.

But what folks like yourself are missing is the context of his play.

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=30&s=30&f1=2010_p&f2=5v5&f5=VAN&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67#

Hansen has some of the best underlying numbers (if not the best) on the team - 7th best corsi, while getting 36.8% offensive zone starts. Look at what the players just above him were getting - far higher, from 50 to high 60s...

Hansen plays a shutdown role - with respectable offensive production in the playoffs. Not sure what people like you expect, but propping up Kyle Clifford is not convincing.

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=30&s=29&f1=2011_p&f2=5v5&f5=VAN&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67

Pick the smaller sample playoff years - same story.

Evidently you haven't heard it all... at all.

U forgot to mention 2 STANLEY CUPS (which is the most important stat) & if you watch him play in the playoffs U would see he is a huge asset. Just ask Mr Sutter, I think he knows more than U.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting though to look at Dorsett and why JB and WD saw the value in him to spend a 3rd round pick.

I think Jannik has more upside and two way versatility - Hansen has approached the 30 and 40 point ranges as a 3rd liner, and has been an invaluable penalty killer and role player. It seems fairly evident to me that Hansen's market value is significantly higher, but I'm not underplaying Dorsett in saying so - the point I'm trying to make is that I'm not doubting the Canucks judgement in spending a 3rd on Dorsett, but more that folks are really underselling Hansen around here.

Dorsett has been a pretty pure role player. Through the playoffs he was a big part of what I thought was the Rags best line.

Boyle and D Moore may be more versatile in some senses, and played slightly bigger minutes 5on5 and quite a bit more shorthanded than Dorsett, but it's hard to deny what Dorsett does bring in that 10 minutes he was playing 5 on 5 on the fourth line.

If you look at is from a points or tangible statistics standpoint, he only had an assist and was -2 in 23 games.

So Dorsett doesn't really add much threat of scoring, he doesn't necessarily block a lot of shots, or kill penalties...

But if you look at his underlying numbers, it's a different story

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=30&s=29&f1=2013_p&f2=5v5&f5=NYR&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67#

In the playoffs, with 32% offensive zone starts he had a +2.5 relative corsi, and along with Boyle and Moore generated some positive territory.

I think it would be really interesting to know what else was behind JB and WD's determination to acquire him (aside from WD having coached him and knowing him). He obviously brings a certain stiffness and courage to the fourth line, has been known throughout his career (even before the NHL) to step up his intensity and game in the playoffs - and he's a different type player than what the team otherwise has in the bottom six of their depth charts, but I have a feeling there's more there that we're going to see this season.

I'm pretty excited to see what both the second line and the fourth line do this season and looking forward to seeing more of Dorsett, and hopefully a healthier Hansen. I think the Canucks are going to be a significantly more difficult team to play against.

I really like the Dorsett acquisition...if he can be what Aaron Asham was for Philly and the Pens a few years ago, and what Brandon Prust was for NYR a couple of seasons ago, for the Canucks, I'll be overjoyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

U forgot to mention 2 STANLEY CUPS (which is the most important stat) & if you watch him play in the playoffs U would see he is a huge asset. Just ask Mr Sutter, I think he knows more than U.

So he is the entire reason the Kings have 2 cups? Not Brown?Not Kopitar?Not Carter?Richards?

Edit: Im ashamed of myself...Forgot Quick

Gaborik was also a key factor in last years cup

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...