Plum Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Some might not like it but I think Hamhuis might be a great decision. He's a recent Olympian, so his value his high and I think some believe he's still a #1 or a really good #2. He's a #3 on our team and doesn't look too good in recent games. Edler looks great with Tanev, he struggled in the 2 games without Tanev like Elliotte Friedman mentioned during the pre-game. He looks better now, Hamhuis looks great beside Tanev. Leads me to believe Tanev is our best defenceman, Edler is there to stay with Tanev. I think Hamhuis is the odd one out because he can't skate the puck into the offensive zone and looks weak out there. Hamhuis was on a Canadian Olympic team just 13 months ago. I think we can get a 1st + B prospect for Hamhuis. A team like Florida or Buffalo might be a good place to trade him to because they have a good future and nothing better than adding a guy who could be their leader back there. Maybe a change in system is all Hamhuis needs because he was great when he made the Canadian team. NTC might be hard but Buffalo is an up and coming contender, Florida is a great place to live with also a good future coming up. Garrison also got traded when he had a NTC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakrami Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 What does the trade deadline mean to you? If you are taking about the summer, a lot of different things can factor in which doesn't apply now. Have we signed Tanev? Are we going to sign some UFA Ds (Boychuk, Staal, Franson). So instead of a proposal to trade away our core, I'd enjoy our playoff run now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Any trade involving a code player like hamhuis is going to depend on this playoff run, as it looks like we'll make it. Another stinker of a first round exit and we may see a key piece moved. Hamhuis would still yield a good return, however, as others have mentioned he has an NTC and signed at a discount to play here. He may not waive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plum Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share Posted March 10, 2015 What does the trade deadline mean to you? If you are taking about the summer, a lot of different things can factor in which doesn't apply now. Have we signed Tanev? Are we going to sign some UFA Ds (Boychuk, Staal, Franson). So instead of a proposal to trade away our core, I'd enjoy our playoff run now. Yeah the draft/summer. Tanev will get re-signed. Considering the logjam at D, I don't expect us to have 8-9 defencemen on our NHL roster. I also hope Benning doesn't get rid of Corrado over Clendening because Clendening is his guy. Edler-Tanev Sbisa-Bieksa Stanton-Clendening Corrado Not too bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 NTC might be hard but Buffalo is an up and coming contender, Tell the truth, you're Ehrhoff pulling our chain. Am I right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdatb Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 man trading Hamhuis after he took a pay cut to play here would not be good for future UFAs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 man trading Hamhuis after he took a pay cut to play here would not be good for future UFAs. Garrison took less to play here. Didn't stop Vrbata from signing for less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Hamhuis is a UFA next year. If we aren't in playoff position, go ahead, trade him. But don't trade him at the draft because you have too much of a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRAZY_4_NAZZY Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I say wait til the deadline next year...if we aren't in sight for the playoffs then deal him away as we will probs get more value from the deal then from him sticking around. But if we are again in a playoff looking situation than keep him. I like to see how Sbisa emerges from this next year...if he can really step up his game a bit more I'd be comfortable losing Hammer. Only reason as of right now Losing Hammer would hurt our team bad as his stability is just so key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Problem is that we're really weak in LD depth. It's our weakest position organizationally. On the right side we have Tanev, Bieksa, Clendening, Corrado, Weber, Biega...loads. But after Edler, Hamhuis, Sbisa, and Stanton, there's not much on the left. It's the opposite problem we had for a while - tonnes of LDs, but not enough on the right. Because of that, if any vet D-man gets traded, I think it's most likely going to be Bieksa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 man trading Hamhuis after he took a pay cut to play here would not be good for future UFAs. I feel as though this is a poor argument. They said the same thing about the Garrison trade. Luongo trade. Hodgson trade. not paying Ehrhoff enough Malhotra dealings not signing Naslund to what he wanted Bertuzzi and on and on and on. This argument is so full of holes one might think it was lack in net against Buffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdatb Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I feel as though this is a poor argument. They said the same thing about the Garrison trade. Luongo trade. Hodgson trade. not paying Ehrhoff enough Malhotra dealings not signing Naslund to what he wanted Bertuzzi and on and on and on. This argument is so full of holes one might think it was lack in net against Buffalo Valid points. However we need more strength on the right side. Hence, trading Bieksa is probably a better idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirbs11 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Next trade deadline have a sit down with him...Is he really about this team and being apart of it? if he is then trade him at the deadline and cash in, after this years deadline prices he should fetch a first and a prospect In the off season he can come back and sign here, Canucks give him a playoff run with a top contender while he helps us get better for the future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billabong Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Why trade a solid nhl defender and sign someone else? Edler-Tanev Hamhuis-corrado Stanton-bieksa Sbisa-clendening Weber is expendable and if Sbisa wants out then so be it. Corrado and clendening can battle it out for the 6th spot as neither has shown real signs of being ready for 20mins a night in the nhl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 It's a tough decision to make for sure. It could either work out as 1) successful building for the future by getting prospects who fit (from the high pick and prospect/ almost ready NHL player like the Erat/ Forsberg, or Mike Richards deals), OR 2) totally bust (the Legwand, Clowe, etc. deals to get middling prospects who don't pan out). I'd personally hope to keep him as part of the core given the risk of the returned assets not panning out. If we do move him, I'd hope to get a young player with visible potential as (part of) the return OR we'd better sign a replacement top-4 D-man (I doubt that Luca will be the guy unless he learns to make the safe play). If we're tanking by next deadline, then of course, by all means move Community Man Dan and Juice (I'd move Juice now if we could!) but there's a risk that a trade like this could bust as he may be the sole proven asset moved, and as touted as prospects get they're not surefire assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A NEW BEGINNING Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 With Benning's willingness to deal picks for NHL ready players, I would take picks, and see what Benning comes up with. So what would Hamhuis be worth to Edmonton, a team that so desperately need veteran leadership. As for the Canucks, we could use the free agency market to fill Hamhuis's spot, or promote from with in. I could see Hamhuis, Higgins and the rights to *Richardson going to Edmonton for Pittsburg's 1st (23OA) + Edmonton's 2nd (32 OA) (*conditional 2017 3rd if Richardson doesn't sign) That is some serious leadership to Edmonton and Vancouver can replace that internally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plum Posted March 14, 2015 Author Share Posted March 14, 2015 With Benning's willingness to deal picks for NHL ready players, I would take picks, and see what Benning comes up with. So what would Hamhuis be worth to Edmonton, a team that so desperately need veteran leadership. As for the Canucks, we could use the free agency market to fill Hamhuis's spot, or promote from with in. I could see Hamhuis, Higgins and the rights to *Richardson going to Edmonton for Pittsburg's 1st (23OA) + Edmonton's 2nd (32 OA) (*conditional 2017 3rd if Richardson doesn't sign) That is some serious leadership to Edmonton and Vancouver can replace that internally I'd probably want some more. A 1st in either 2015 or 2016 + a B prospect. Like, Hamhuis for STL 1st + Rattie or Hamhuis for DAL 1st + Ully/Faksa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A NEW BEGINNING Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Thing is Plum, I don't think you will get that much. Dallas's first will be much higher, demanding more. Not sure about St. Louis's 1st. Not saying I don't like those proposals, I just think that might be a touch much. But for me, it is to get our prospects as close together age wise to start with.....but we need to upgrade our defensive prospects so much, as we desperately need that PMD prospect. I don't know, I am sure Benning has his plan laid out and will see, but I would just replace Hamhuis with a UFA while our Prospects develop. Could you imagine getting defensemen with the 18 OA, 23OA, and 32OA, not to mention the ability to move up with a addition of a B prospect or another veteran.......kiinda pie in the sky there, but imagine (Still got to draft good though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 I don't really see the point in trading one of our better defenders when our defense already needs some fine-tuning. I think there are much better options for us than to trade Hamhuis. Unfortunately, it's a waiting game a lot of the time, but I like what Benning is already doing with getting defense prospects like Pedan and Clendening withoutt splitting the team apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaner Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I'm in middle. Definitely not good for our LD in the short term, but if we could package up Hamhuis, Richardson (who I believe will walk anyways), perhaps Gaunce, or another prospect, and we might be able to get that future #1 PMD or #1 centre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.