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

[Discussion] Hamhuis & Bieska


Recommended Posts

At the end of next season (2016) both Dan Hamhuis and Kevin Bieska will be UFA's. By the end of their contracts Bieska will be 35 and Hammer will be turning 34. They are not young players in their prime anymore. Both players provide a different element to this team. What is the future plan with these two players?

What I'd like to see

Bieska is a team leader, he provides the back end grit that a team needs. At 35 he may be on the down slide but I think his traits are a good asset to the team, traits that are not easily replaced. I can se Bieska getting a 2 year contract extension.

It's always a touchy subject brining up traded with core players but I would like to start thinking about the possibility of moving Hammer this year around trade deadline. He's been solid for us and is a great guy but we have a younger player who is coming into his own that provides a very similar game. Tanev in my mind can replace what Hamhuis provides to this team. Hamhuis does have a NTC so it would put a damper to trading him but finding the right team he would be a very valuable asset and we'd likely get back a decent return.

If Canucks were to move a player like Hamhuis at trade deadline or this offseason, What would you want? What would you expect in return?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He'd probably only want to be traded to a contender, so we would't get a very good draft pick for him (probably high 2nd) and if we traded for a b level D prospect it's probably not even worth it. Hammer on his decline will still be a solid d-man and i'm sure he wants to retire with his home province team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He'd probably only want to be traded to a contender, so we would't get a very good draft pick for him (probably high 2nd) and if we traded for a b level D prospect it's probably not even worth it. Hammer on his decline will still be a solid d-man and i'm sure he wants to retire with his home province team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think whether or not we keep them depends on how our D prospects pan out. We have a very weak group of D prospects so I'm not sure we will even have suitable replacements for them. Hopefully guys like Hutton, Andersson, and the guy I'm most interested in, Tryamkin, are ready to play in the NHL by then.

I wouldn't mind trading hammer this year, we could probably get a 1st and a very good prospect for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hamhuis will only be traded if he wants to be traded and I just don't see that happening. Same for Bieksa. Hamhuis will either retire a canuck or sign with a contender when his contract is up. Bieksa will never play for another team.

Actually I could see Bieksa leaving but only if he's run out of town by the CDC :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hamhuis will be 33, not 34. :P

At the end of next season (2016) both Dan Hamhuis and Kevin Bieska will be UFA's. By the end of their contracts Bieska will be 35 and Hammer will be turning 34. They are not young players in their prime anymore. Both players provide a different element to this team. What is the future plan with these two players?

"Turning" 34. His B-day is in december ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trading Hamhuis this season is an awful idea for a few reasons.

1. He is the only legit first pair D man we have. Tanev is good and maybe can get there but he isn't yet. And Edler and KB are 2nd pair guys.

2.No one in our D prospect pool is a projected #1 or #2 D man. We might get a surprise but I wouldn't want to bet on that.

3. If we trade him, we won't get a top D man back that can fill that spot next season, and likely can't in free agency either.

We are going to ride Hammer and KB for at least another 5 years till whoever we draft for the back end this year and next are ready for top pair minutes. It would be a lot more likely to see Benning move Edler and a spare forward for a couple younger D prospects to a team that needs defense now. (Edmonton, Buffalo ect)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of next season (2016) both Dan Hamhuis and Kevin Bieska will be UFA's. By the end of their contracts Bieska will be 35 and Hammer will be turning 34. They are not young players in their prime anymore. Both players provide a different element to this team. What is the future plan with these two players?

What I'd like to see

Bieska is a team leader, he provides the back end grit that a team needs. At 35 he may be on the down slide but I think his traits are a good asset to the team, traits that are not easily replaced. I can se Bieska getting a 2 year contract extension.

It's always a touchy subject brining up traded with core players but I would like to start thinking about the possibility of moving Hammer this year around trade deadline. He's been solid for us and is a great guy but we have a younger player who is coming into his own that provides a very similar game. Tanev in my mind can replace what Hamhuis provides to this team. Hamhuis does have a NTC so it would put a damper to trading him but finding the right team he would be a very valuable asset and we'd likely get back a decent return.

If Canucks were to move a player like Hamhuis at trade deadline or this offseason, What would you want? What would you expect in return?

I think that sometimes the best long-term trades are this type-getting a good young player or players for a still useful veteran.

Notwithstanding that JB did it with Garrison, I think one should be careful in approaching players with no trade contracts. I was no Gillis fan but have to say that one thing he did well at was making his core players feel that the organization wanted them and they were secure in Vancouver. There is a benefit to that-the players can feel loyalty to the organization and play better or be willing to take a discount.

(The coaches of course end up reversing some of that when a players sits on the bench. For example, see Luongo saga part I. For a further example see the Luong Saga, Part II.)

One also has to be careful not to make the team completely uncompetitive while it is rebuilding or retooling, resulting in what I'll call an Edmonton model rebuild.

Of course, it is impossible to guess the future and know exactly when a player is done. Personally, I think Bieksa is coming fairly close to the end of what has been a good career-that he could hang on longer than his current contract but not at anything like the level he's been.

Personally, I'd respect the ntc, though if Pittsburgh, Tampa, Chicago or LA were to come calling it might be worth asking the player what his feeling are-perhaps something along the lines of we're happy with you but if you wwould rather move to a contender that chance may be there, how do you feel about it?

I personally would really hate to see JB approach either of these players and actually ask him to waive his ntc.

tyhee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trading Hamhuis this season is an awful idea for a few reasons.

1. He is the only legit first pair D man we have. Tanev is good and maybe can get there but he isn't yet. And Edler and KB are 2nd pair guys.

2.No one in our D prospect pool is a projected #1 or #2 D man. We might get a surprise but I wouldn't want to bet on that.

3. If we trade him, we won't get a top D man back that can fill that spot next season, and likely can't in free agency either.

We are going to ride Hammer and KB for at least another 5 years till whoever we draft for the back end this year and next are ready for top pair minutes. It would be a lot more likely to see Benning move Edler and a spare forward for a couple younger D prospects to a team that needs defense now. (Edmonton, Buffalo ect)

Currently if we consider Tanev a top 4 we have: The grit (bieska), the size/shot (Edler) the shutdown defender (Hammer/Tanev) and were missing the PMD.

Mike green will likely be UFA next year. Could be a good pick up as a UFA or possibly a trade deadline pick depending where this team is positioned.

Green Edler

Bieska Tanev

Sbisa Stanton

Weber

Corrado

Whether it's green or another PMD It would take off a ton of pressure off Edler from being our top offensive D and allow him to play the simple game like he did when Ehrhoff was around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently if we consider Tanev a top 4 we have: The grit (bieska), the size/shot (Edler) the shutdown defender (Hammer/Tanev) and were missing the PMD.

Mike green will likely be UFA next year. Could be a good pick up as a UFA or possibly a trade deadline pick depending where this team is positioned.

Green Edler

Bieska Tanev

Sbisa Stanton

Weber

Corrado

Whether it's green or another PMD It would take off a ton of pressure off Edler from being our top offensive D and allow him to play the simple game like he did when Ehrhoff was around.

Edler isn't a top pair d, so all this would do is expose him completely with an offense first guy like Green. If we want to get better it would make a lot more sense to dump Edler for picks or prospects and sign Green. Then you can play

Hammer Tanev

Green Bieksa

Sibisa Stanton

Webber/Corrado/

Edler return.

There is just no way that we are better Defensively with Edler than Hamhuis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edler isn't a top pair d, so all this would do is expose him completely with an offense first guy like Green. If we want to get better it would make a lot more sense to dump Edler for picks or prospects and sign Green. Then you can play

Hammer Tanev

Green Bieksa

Sibisa Stanton

Webber/Corrado/

Edler return.

There is just no way that we are better Defensively with Edler than Hamhuis.

Edler has average 23 minutes a game over the last 5 years. He is a top pair D. He's had rough two years but the team has also put a tone on him (play the most minutes, be strong defensively, & be the canucks top offensive player). He was much better when his game was simple and wasn't relied on so much. Back when him and Ehrhoff were a top pair they were easily our best D. I have no doubt that if we take some of the spot light off of Edler he goes back to being one of our best players. Edler is 4 years younger than Hammer and still has plenty of hockey left.

Hammer is great defensively but I wouldn't be surprised if Tanev surpasses him before Hamhuis' contract it up and they play to similar of a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, I doubt Hamhuis, Bieksa, or Edler get moved in the next 3-4 years. Even on the decline, they'd want to be here.

Hamhuis if from this province, grew up cheering for the team, doubt he wants to leave.

Bieksa is the heart of the team.

Edler doesn't want to waive according to reports, meaning he likes it here.

Plus we got no prospects to replace them. Corrado seems like he'll be a solid #3-4 guy at max, but no one else really sticks out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edler has average 23 minutes a game over the last 5 years. He is a top pair D. He's had rough two years but the team has also put a tone on him (play the most minutes, be strong defensively, & be the canucks top offensive player). He was much better when his game was simple and wasn't relied on so much. Back when him and Ehrhoff were a top pair they were easily our best D. I have no doubt that if we take some of the spot light off of Edler he goes back to being one of our best players. Edler is 4 years younger than Hammer and still has plenty of hockey left.

Hammer is great defensively but I wouldn't be surprised if Tanev surpasses him before Hamhuis' contract it up and they play to similar of a game.

Edler has never been our best D. The whole reason Tanev has been so good is that he play similar to Hamhuis which is why they are our best pairing right now. It's also supported by their corsi stats. The lacking part of our defense now is a PMD which is what Edler was supposed to be, but he isn't.

He also has shown he can't handle top pairing minutes. He needs to be sheltered on the second pairing with a solid partner that can break out of our own zone. When he is relied on to be the strong player on a pairing he can't handle it.

He may play 23 min, but he plays 23 min against second and third liners. Hamhuis and Tanev are given the match ups to shut down the top lines for 23 min a game.

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...