hockeyking Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 The main difference would be that Hamhuis is older and may want to move on to a team that can contend for a cup. After all, he went from a retooling Nashville to a team that could compete right away initially. If Bieksa ultimately waived, and he initially wanted to stay, that to me makes it clear what the veteran intent is. Could be wrong, but I doubt it. If we trade Hamhuis at the deadline, it would have to be to a team like Chicago as they try to repeat. It might even be Anaheim. Maybe even back to Nashville. I am not saying there isn't an opportunity but there is being way too much read into the fact that canucks haven't started contract negotiations when they usually start doing that kind of stuff around when the season starts and almost never in the summer. Contract negotiations with the sedins, higgins, and hansen all started after the season started not during the summer. I think its quite absurd to assume just because they don't plan on negotiating in the summer (which they don't do for most player's) that it means he's going to be traded or that the canucks aren't planning on resigning them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asian player Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I'd try to keep hammer at the deadline and hopefully re-sign him unless we can find a guy through trade or free agency. He's the only real veteran mentor on our back end and he can still play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I think its quite absurd to assume just because they don't plan on negotiating in the summer (which they don't do for most player's) that it means he's going to be traded or that the canucks aren't planning on resigning them. I think most people are assuming/hoping something happens (either re-signed at a reasonable rate, traded for a king's ransom or ideally both) because we don't want to see a valuable asset simply walk next the summer. It has little to do with the current date IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono2009 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Best case scenario: We trade him for a first at the deadline, he wins a cup and resigns in the summer for like 2.5-3 mil AAV. A man can dream. I think your dream could be a reality. Let's face it, the Canucks are rebuilding on the fly. Hamhuis, Vrbata, and whoever is bait at the deadline will be moved. I would love to see Dan pull a Vermette. Get traded. Go win the cup. And then comback. Some call it a dream. I call it a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greetingsfrombrazil Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I think it all depends on how good the Canucks are come February. If we are in the bottom of our division, Benning definitely will be a shopper. If we are in the same position as last season, I can see Hamhuis staying unless a team blow our socks off with a great offer. I would trade him at the deadline, and I think that's what's going to happen. But come free agency, he should be a target. Our defense is not that strong already, we're screwed without Hammer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I'm fine with either of the two options: (1) trade Hamhuis at the deadline or (2) sign him to an extension (likely at a discount). I'm not ok with the third option: (3) hold onto Hamhuis and then lose him (for zero return) when he hits free agency. As long as Benning doesn't go with option (3) on Hamhuis, or any other key assets (Vrbata, etc.), then I'll be happy. I just don't want to see any more wasted assets, lost for zero return, like what happened with Matthias and Richardson. I'm happy to chase the playoffs but the first priority needs to be making the most of this team's assets for the future. Any player that is not part of the future plans (ie: any impending UFA that is not extended) needs to be traded for whatever future assets (picks, prospects, under-25 players, etc.) they can secure. And only players that can aide in the transition should be extended. Keep players that fit the timeline for when this team will compete. Or keep select veterans who can form a mentorship core through the transition. I think Hanhuis could definitely be helpful here. But he could also yield a tidy package of future assets. It's up to Benning to determine which is more valuable to this team. I'll trust JB to make the right choice. And I'll be very happy with either option (1) or option (2), so long as we avoid the dreaded option (3). Option 3 would be the definition of terrible asset management. I highly doubt Benning's dumb enough to hold on to Hamhuis if we're out of playoff contention at the trade deadline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 So if you figure Hamhuis is not a true top 4 d-man, what the heck do you figure he is? Where did I say that? A presumptive little one aren't you? Let's take a look at what I said, shall we? "I think Hamhuis needs to stay, (which means I believe him to be important to the team) unless Benning has plans on signing a true, proven top 4 defenseman in next year's free agency.(Which would be to replace Hamhuis, if he is traded.) Having a mentor on the blueline would be a very valuable asset." (Which Hamhuis is.) Fact is Hamhuis is getting older, but for his age is still a very good defenseman who most recently had an amazing effect of Brent Burns' game at the Worlds. He is still a solid top four defenseman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hlinkas wrister Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I would say keep Hammer and shop Vrbata at the deadline if they are out of it. They both have NTC's though don't they ? That limits the potential markets and returns if and when they are made available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erkayloomeh Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I could only make that decision if I knew what was coming back our way. If somebody wants him at the deadline it's a playoff team so only a 15 or.lower first rounder. So maybe a first (say 20)in 2016 and two seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHodgson9 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Ideally, we ship Hamhuis out for a 1st + prospect or 1st + young player at the deadline...and he comes back and signs with us in the Summer. That would be awesome for the canucks in terms of asset management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I am not saying there isn't an opportunity but there is being way too much read into the fact that canucks haven't started contract negotiations when they usually start doing that kind of stuff around when the season starts and almost never in the summer. Contract negotiations with the sedins, higgins, and hansen all started after the season started not during the summer. I think its quite absurd to assume just because they don't plan on negotiating in the summer (which they don't do for most player's) that it means he's going to be traded or that the canucks aren't planning on resigning them.Put it this way, why would you stay if you were Hamhuis, knowing the trend of non-Sedin vets all leaving one-by-one? I can think of one reason: Money. But I think Hamhuis probably wants to win, so if he's staying, he'd have to be convinced he has a chance to win here AND he has to take a discount. Tough sell through a rebuild imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Jim Benning and the whole management group expressed pretty clearly that Canucks want to remain competitive and want to develop young players with the guidance of good mentors. I understand this strategy and support this. I think Sedins should retire as Canucks and be mentors to younger players. If I look on our roster, this is what I see: a ) forwards: Obviously, we have Sedins there as our veterans. Burrows is a great example how hard it can be to get yourself to the next level as well. b ) goalies: Miller is here as an experienced goalie who should be a mentor to younger goalies. c ) defence: Here, that´s interesting. Only veteran with leadership skills I can really see is Dan Hamhuis. He is the only one aged above 30, still just 32 years old. Dan is UFA at the end of next season. Some people are suggesting to trade Hamhuis for picks at the trade deadline. If we would trade him, there is nobody else to be that mentor. It is more apparent now after Bieksa´s departure. What do you guys think? - Should we trade Dan Hamhuis at deadline or give him an extension? - Is this mentor thing overrated? Thanks again pmalina for running "Rate the Players" last season. It was very interesting. As for Hammer, I want the best of both worlds. I hope the Canucks trade him at the deadline for a first round pick. I hope that the team Hammer goes to wins the Stanley Cup. (Hammer deserves it and a Cup ring would go nicely with his Olympic gold medal.) And then I hope the Canucks re-sign Hammer next summer and he comes back and helps the Canucks win a Cup in 2017. (I am flexible, though. I am willing to wait until 2018 for a Cup.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zverta Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Benning said that they weren't interested in extension talks with both Hammer and Vrbata. Best case for us fans is that he gets packaged at the deadline for some much needed 1st's! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desiboynux4lifee******* Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I think it all depends on how good the Canucks are come February. If we are in the bottom of our division, Benning definitely will be a shopper. If we are in the same position as last season, I can see Hamhuis staying unless a team blow our socks off with a great offer. I would trade him at the deadline, and I think that's what's going to happen. But come free agency, he should be a target. Our defense is not that strong already, we're screwed without Hammer. Again, it's time management are honest with themselves. I want moves made even if we are 7th place come deadline day,Benning and Linden cannot give the core another chance because they have gotten 4 chances to prove themselves in the playoffs. It's enough, even if this team is in the playoffs, Benning should look at trading away guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erkayloomeh Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Ideally, we ship Hamhuis out for a 1st + prospect or 1st + young player at the deadline...and he comes back and signs with us in the Summer. That would be awesome for the canucks in terms of asset management.is that allowed? That would be awesome. Hypothetical couldn't a team have a verbal agreement with a player to give him a good retirement contract if he would agree to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 ... I think what will happen is Benning will wait - specifically to see how Clendening and Corrado do. If one of them surprises, and seems like a quality top-4 D-man who pairs well with Hamhuis, and the team overall is in good position for a playoff spot, they will try to extend him. But if no quality RD emerges, or they are struggling and looking to miss the playoffs, or they cannot get an extension done, then they will move him at the deadline. I think odds are he gets traded. And really, it is in the best interests of the franchise long-term. We aren't in a position to contend for a cup in the next couple of years, and after that Hamhuis will likely be much less effective. May as well turn him into younger players that will help us more when we're ready. Corrado and Clendening are the key to whether or not we can move Hamhuis. Corrado being able to play left side particularly. It's one thing if Sbisa can manage to step up but if no one behind he and Tanev on the depth chart show they can handle top 4 then I don't think he moves Hamhuis. Maybe after the season Benning would re-evaluate and then target a UFA to help in the meantime, but unless we see more progress from the younger players (Sbisa and Weber as well - we aren't worried about Edler and Tanev) that will make Hamhuis too important to move. I'm fine with either of the two options: (1) trade Hamhuis at the deadline or (2) sign him to an extension (likely at a discount). I'm not ok with the third option: (3) hold onto Hamhuis and then lose him (for zero return) when he hits free agency. As long as Benning doesn't go with option (3) on Hamhuis, or any other key assets (Vrbata, etc.), then I'll be happy. ... Absolutely. It was one thing to do so with Matthias particularly (Richardson and especially Stanton were more understandable) but to do so with Vrbata and Hamhuis just to chase a couple of playoff games is a poor decision for a team that isn't going to contend without changes. The main difference would be that Hamhuis is older and may want to move on to a team that can contend for a cup. After all, he went from a retooling Nashville to a team that could compete right away initially. If Bieksa ultimately waived, and he initially wanted to stay, that to me makes it clear what the veteran intent is. Could be wrong, but I doubt it. If we trade Hamhuis at the deadline, it would have to be to a team like Chicago as they try to repeat. It might even be Anaheim. Maybe even back to Nashville. I'd think he'd want a chance at winning, but he left Nashville because they slow played their negotiations with him and he wanted a chance to play for the home team. It was a bonus that we could be a contender, but he had chances to sign with both Philly and Pittsburgh when they traded for his rights before free agency. We have to make that decision prior to the deadline if we want him back or not. If not, then we have to get assets back for him rather than hold onto him for a stretch run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 is that allowed? That would be awesome. Hypothetical couldn't a team have a verbal agreement with a player to give him a good retirement contract if he would agree to do that? No, by trading a rental player you have to allow the new team every opportunity to re-sign them. You can let the player know you'd like to talk to them again in free agency, but can't have anything formal in place - even verbally - prior to trading them. I'd be just fine with us bringing him back after a trade. It doesn't happen that often but with his local ties it could. The only issue there is other teams might see that and lower their offers as a result if they wanted him for more than a rental. Now if only we could do that by moving Miller next year and bringing Lack back. He and Vrbata are our biggest chips we could have in play though come next deadline. Maybe Burrows for a lesser, Bieksa-esque deal, as well as Higgins or Hansen, but nothing would bring the value that Hamhuis and Vrbata could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VenitoHammer Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Won't be sad to see Hamhuis traded. All those cough up's and wtf sort of plays, no offensive touch or jump. Mentor? How about free up that cap space and look to coax Seabrook into coming home next year. That's a mentor you want for your young guys! Also, go after Ty Barrie, another hometown guy. Seabrook - Barrie Edler - Tanev Corrado - Clendening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I would like to see Hamhuis traded at the deadline for a 1st, a top prospect, and a conditional 2nd (if he re-signs). Similar to Sekera, only with the conditional pick. That would speed up this rebuild considerably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharbinder Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Thanks again pmalina for running "Rate the Players" last season. It was very interesting. As for Hammer, I want the best of both worlds. I hope the Canucks trade him at the deadline for a first round pick. I hope that the team Hammer goes to wins the Stanley Cup. (Hammer deserves it and a Cup ring would go nicely with his Olympic gold medal.) And then I hope the Canucks re-sign Hammer next summer and he comes back and helps the Canucks win a Cup in 2017. (I am flexible, though. I am willing to wait until 2018 for a Cup. My Ideal scenario is keep him & trade Edler for a nice haul . Then resign Hamhuis play with a young RHD . While Tanev can play with Sbisa to hopefully help him develop . However , per the bolded part above . My belief is Hamhuis may not resign , as he is a Stanley Cup away from Triple Gold Club . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.