Next GM Test for Benning, another D?

[Provost]

With reports coming out that Hamhuis is done for months with his injury, this is a key time for Benning to build on what he has accomplished so far.

Is he willing and able to make a move to shore up our defence, and help us stay on the road to the playoffs?

I don;t think it can be overstated how big a loss Hamhuis will be for our team, we don't have anyone else ready to step into a top 4 role, even on a short term basis. We will be lucky to tread at .500 hockey while he is gone.

With lots of teams looking for defence, the price will be steep but it is needed if we want to keep winning. Defensive depth was the one achilles heel of the roster at the beginning of the season and it has come to the forefront now.

[William_Clarkson]

Big, physical, shutdown defenseman for the top 4 is needed for sure. SJ even got Dillon off of Dallas to help out in that regard. Ideally right handed so they can play with Hamhuis when he comes back and probably Sbisa for now with Bieksa with Stanton on the 3rd pairing. A big slapshot would be nice too since Weber's shot helped out the PP and if he goes back to being a scratch.

[Jiggs50]

I think first you see how Sbisa and Stanton respond with extended minutes. If those 2 stink it up, you give Corrado an opportunity. AFTER that, Benning should go looking for defense.

[JamesB]

Big, physical, shutdown defenseman for the top 4 is needed for sure. SJ even got Dillon off of Dallas to help out in that regard. Ideally right handed so they can play with Hamhuis when he comes back and probably Sbisa for now with Bieksa with Stanton on the 3rd pairing. A big slapshot would be nice too since Weber's shot helped out the PP and if he goes back to being a scratch.

Losing Hamhuis is a big loss. And it would be great to be able to replace him with a quality top 4 defenceman. But if any team is willing to give up a player of that level it will only do so if they are getting what they think is something better in return. And the market for quality defencemen is a sellers' market right now.

Fortunately Benning is too smart to fall into the trap of trading away important future assets for a short term fix. If there is a good deal out there, great. But it is more likely that the team needs to rely on its current short term depth. I realize that the Canucks do not have a lot of depth at the D position, but I think that Corrado and Sanguinetti (who has been playing extremely well in Utica) should get a long look first. That means Sbisa probably plays top 4 for now, which I admit is a bit scary, but he came in the Kesler trade with the idea that he could potentially play top 4.

Now is his opportunity.

[Rollieo Del Fuego]

Probably in before the lock.

We are fine for now let's see where Corrado is at and there is always Sanguinetti and Anderson.

Trade deadline if we are still in it then trade for D. (Lack or Markstrom ++)

[Wash]

Oh Salo, where art thou?

[Provost]

I think first you see how Sbisa and Stanton respond with extended minutes. If those 2 stink it up, you give Corrado an opportunity. AFTER that, Benning should go looking for defense.

I don't think you do. You show your guys that you will do what it takes to give them reinforcements. Those guys you mentioned are going to get more minutes regardless because anyone you bring in isn't going to be the calibre of Hamhuis and playing over minutes per game. The minutes will be spread a lot more evenly between all three pairs.

The downside of a trade is that even though we have forward depth, removing one of our veterans going the other way interferes with rolling 4 lines like we have been.

[nuck nit]

The need to improve is always the case-get younger,cheaper,trade veterans for future picks while picking up undervalued/off the radar prospects that can fill a roster spot seamlessly.

That's the game and Benning is pretty good at it.

The public has no idea of the severity of Hamhuis' injury so the pressure is always to constantly improve,not knee jerk speculate.

If and when we find out that Hamhuis' injury is severe the dynamics change but Benning appears more than capable to deal with it.

[William_Clarkson]

Losing Hamhuis is a big loss. And it would be great to be able to replace him with a quality top 4 defenceman. But if any team is willing to give up a player of that level it will only do so if they are getting what they think is something better in return. And the market for quality defencemen is a sellers' market right now.

Fortunately Benning is too smart to fall into the trap of trading away important future assets for a short term fix. If there is a good deal out there, great. But it is more likely that the team needs to rely on its current short term depth. I realize that the Canucks do not have a lot of depth at the D position, but I think that Corrado and Sanguinetti (who has been playing extremely well in Utica) should get a long look first. That means Sbisa probably plays top 4 for now, which I admit is a bit scary, but he came in the Kesler trade with the idea that he could potentially play top 4.

Now is his opportunity.

If the guy is young enough he could be a real good asset for years to come. Although, I agree the future can't be completely sacrificed for this.

Overall, I'd be fine with Sbisa in the top four as long as his partner is ready to have to deal with some of his errors (hence why he played with Hamhuis).

[bp79]

I don't think jb is the type of gm who is gonna have a knee jerk reaction and make a losing deal. I think the only deal i see happening is myers from buff he's a guy who jb is on record in the summer as someone he would like to aquire. I may be in the wrong but i don't see this as a huge loss for the nucks and i don't think were gonna struggle as much as the op has stated. there is something off with hammer this year I just don't see him as a fit with anyone else as a partner on this team. when he has been on the ice ive noticed a lot of brain cramp type of plays. After he wen't down against the ducks I though our d looked as good as it has all year. Maybe im totally wrong but I would like to see him dealt when he comes back. he would fetch a tidy sum in a trade. I no longer consider hammer as a top 2 guy on our team that falls imho to Edler and tanev. the bottom 4 can consist of kevin sbisa stanton and webber with corrado filling in or replacing either stanton or webber if they don't play well. for whats its worth i though our d looked the worse when sbisa was out. and i think corrado is the type of player that will play better with the nucks rather then ewith the comets. He seems like the kind of player who plays best when hes up with the big boys

[Plum]

I'd rather Benning not trade for a defenceman, we aren't supposed to be 2nd in the west, if we can just stay above .500 with Hamhuis out that's good enough and I think everyone will need to step their game up a little bit. The way we play doesn't really show our weakness at defence unless we're stuck in the offensive zone against the other teams' top players but we'll need Miller to come out big and he usually does. We still have Edler, Tanev, Bieksa and Stanton who can play as top 4 defenceman sometimes, I think we'll need to spread them out because Weber and Sbisa together isn't something I'd like to see.

Edler-Tanev

Sbisa-Bieksa

Stanton-Weber

These are my pairings, I think we can live through this.

[Wilbur]

Can't make a knee jerk reaction if Hamhuis is out. My guess is they've been looking to upgrade the D anyway, but you can't overpay and sacrifice the future. As said above, if there is a trade out there that makes sense, go for it. But if it's not there, stand pat. This team isn't a cup contender so stop gap solutions don't make sense.

[Gaudette Celly]

Fortunately Benning is too smart to fall into the trap of trading away important future assets for a short term fix. If there is a good deal out there, great. But it is more likely that the team needs to rely on its current short term depth.

I don't think jb is the type of gm who is gonna have a knee jerk reaction and make a losing deal.

Absolutely NO reason to panic. See how the current guys do, and as mentioned there's Sanguinetti who has some NHL experience to call up. Andersson and Tommernes unfortunately have none, so if we need to bring one of them in and they can't handle it, THEN we can look more seriously at making a deal. It's time for Bieksa to pick up his game and be a boss.

Some have said "Benning is now dealing from a position of weakness". Howso? The team is up top in the west, above almost everyone's expectations. If anything, he's in a position of strength, with pretty much all his forwards playing well and producing. Considering the "big wall" in his office, he's certainly aware of all other team's positions and by the sounds of it has kicked a lot of tires since taking the job.

Very very few teams are 7 or 8-deep in NHL defensemen, and the Canucks are no worse off than most. Sure Benning might get his boots on but no way will he panic just to make a deal... (which is why fortunately many on CDC aren't GM). And yeah, as bp said, Hamhuis just hadn't got it together yet, so the loss won't be as noticeable as it would have been in the past.

Breathe easy, gents.

[Phil_314]

I don't think you do. You show your guys that you will do what it takes to give them reinforcements. Those guys you mentioned are going to get more minutes regardless because anyone you bring in isn't going to be the calibre of Hamhuis and playing over minutes per game. The minutes will be spread a lot more evenly between all three pairs.

The downside of a trade is that even though we have forward depth, removing one of our veterans going the other way interferes with rolling 4 lines like we have been.

Very good post. It doesn't make sense to trade from the forward depth we have now (MAYBE excluding Hansen from that since Vey probably belongs on the wing anyways) and the guys we have on D have shown glimpses that they can do well in their respective roles, at least in limited samples, and with the quality depth assembled they should still be able to do well like they did in Anaheim. Pairs 2A and 2B would likely have to take ~17 each in their different roles (incl. PP and PK) which they should be able to handle.

Edler - Tanev (takes heavy minutes)

2A: Stanton - Bieksa

2B: Sbisa - Weber

As well, if Benning determines that he has good value (and if Sanguinetti, Andersson, Tommernes, etc. can step up as needed) I wouldn't mind it if Trader Jim moved Frankie and a pick for an NHL-ready young D-man to add depth. Sure Frankie would make for a solid depth option but I'm less and less confident about his ultimate upside and packaging him could get a decent return that we could use both now and in the future.

[Warhippy]

I think we give sanguinetti and corrado a chance.

I think we see where we stand at the deadline. I think Benning is answer enough to know that this year is the perfect year to NOT make any procurement moves.

Think. If we make the playoffs awesome. If we fall out of them, big deal that's what we all thought would happen.

If we start taking though...sell assets at the deadline come back after a full rebuild and draft two or three great players in the first two rounds this year and be happy with back to back years with high draft picks knowing the twins can still produce

[shazzam]

We have 2 top 4 d left

[Jiggs50]

I don't think you do. You show your guys that you will do what it takes to give them reinforcements. Those guys you mentioned are going to get more minutes regardless because anyone you bring in isn't going to be the calibre of Hamhuis and playing over minutes per game. The minutes will be spread a lot more evenly between all three pairs.

The downside of a trade is that even though we have forward depth, removing one of our veterans going the other way interferes with rolling 4 lines like we have been.

If Sbisa and Stanton can step it up, there is no reason for a knee jerk trade.

[Provost]

Can't make a knee jerk reaction if Hamhuis is out. My guess is they've been looking to upgrade the D anyway, but you can't overpay and sacrifice the future. As said above, if there is a trade out there that makes sense, go for it. But if it's not there, stand pat. This team isn't a cup contender so stop gap solutions don't make sense.

I think some folks are still inadvertently drinking the Gillis Kool-aid.

Making a move to address a long term injury is not a knee jerk reaction, it is what good GMs actually do. Gillis always had the mantra of staying the course because he simply was unable to make the appropriate moves. He was lying to people to placate them instead of saying "ya, we need some help but I can't figure out how to do it". Almost every time he did manage to make a move, it made us worse both in the short term and long term. Good GMs can actually make your team better through moves at the same time as managing longer term plans and assets properly.

Sbisa and Stanton are barely holding their own against much weaker opponents, playing many fewer minutes per game. Asking them to play an extra few minutes with more even distribution between the pairings is one thing. Relying on them on the PK and against other teams top lines is a recipe for real problems.

No one has said we should blow up the team in order to address this, but you do bring in help. A guy like Leopold was just had for a 5th round pick and would be the type of guy who would fill a gap just fine. He can safely manage 15-18 minutes per game on a 2nd pairing in the short term.

Benning has the choice to make a move like this, or make a hockey trade for a longer term asset who also helps us going forward. Those types of moves are wicked hard to make this early in the season, but if he can manage it he is a wizard.

[UFCanuck]

Oh Salo, where art thou?

Injured

[bigbadcanucks]

Saw in another thread that someone mentioned a Jannik Hansen for Tom Gilbert deal. I think that's a deal that could work for both teams. Granted, Gilbert is neither the bona-fide PMD or high end defensive prospect, but IMO, he would be a good pick up for the circumstances that we're dealing with right now (i.e., a need for a dependable veteran d-man).

In Tom Gilbert, the Canucks would get a veteran right handed d-man who is capable of 20 minutes per game, who is mobile and with decent size, and who has a decent history of contributing offensively. And it looks like the Habs have a glut of veteran d-men, so Gilbert could very well be pushed down their depth chart.

Hansen would be tough to give up because he's a decent bottom six forward for us, but just taking a quick look at the Habs depth chart, they could probably use a veteran forward like him.

IMO, this would be a good hockey trade as it may serve the needs of both teams...and on the biz side of hockey, their respective cap hits are pretty close, so it works on that front as well.