slickjim23 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I've seen a lot of proposals around here that are overvaluing, and some undervaluing, and I decided to meet those values in the middle to make a pretty realistic shake down of what the trade deadline and draft might look like... At the TDL: Hamhuis: Benning offers Hamhuis to a wide range of top tier teams who could use that steady veteran presence who's a UFA. Here are some decent looking packages that the Canucks could ask for that are pretty fair both ways, especially since Hamhuis' drop in play. I have arranged these from most to least likely in my eyes. Hamhuis at 50% and our 2017 5th to Montreal for their 2016 2nd round pick and 2017 2nd round pick. (Montreal will be reluctant to give up their first, and Benning seems to like having multiple draft picks, so he settles for the depth in the 2nd round) Hamhuis to Dallas for 2016 2nd, 2016 4th, Ludwig Bystrom. (Gives us some picks and a decent little prospect. Bit of a project but could turn into a bottom pairing, mobile type guy, or more.) Hamhuis to Ottawa for 2016 2nd, 2017 3rd, and Patrick Weircioch (We get a hometown boy who's struggling who could turn it around with us and some decent picks.) Hamhuis to Detroit for 2016 2nd + Ryan Sproul (We get a really nice PP QB potential d-man and a really nice 2nd round pick.) Hamhuis to NYI for Our 2016 3rd back and Scott Mayfield. (May be one of the more enticing packages for us, as it gives us a big kid with a great shot who can play a physical game and also is very capable offensively. Asking for the 3rd as well might be reaching but maybe a later pick coming back from us and this could work out) Hamhuis and Weber to Anaheim for 2017 2nd, Josh Manson and Andy Welinksi (If Anaheim overcomes their slump, which it looks like they're going to, and can be in a comfortable position come the TDL, then I can see them targeting Hamhuis to shore up their defense. I think this is one of the less likely ones because I know Benning would want a 1st if Hamhuis is going to Anaheim, but I think if they did work out a deal, it would look something like this... Not too special, but a solid pick, a physical, decently young RH d-man and a really nice looking RH shot prospect would take some of the sting of trading to a division rival away. Also, getting Weber out of here would be very worth it) Hamhuis to Colorado for Nic Meloche. (This one is a bit of a reach, as Meloche is a real nice looking prospect, but if we could make a straight up swap to a team looking for a top 4 LH d-man like Colorado certainly needs for a guy like this, it would definitely be an interesting return.) Vrbata: Vrbata has obviously been unlucky with his SH% being down and it'll definitely lower his value if come TDL this doesn't change, but I still think we can get okay value for Vrbata. He's a nice piece for a team looking for that one shot scoring ability like Vrbata has. A true sniper on his good nights... I don't see many making a call for him cause of his inconsistencies but if teams do, I can see these deals working out.. Vrbata at 50% to Montreal for Jared Tinordi, 2016 3rd and Martin Reway (Canucks get two project young players, but one or both of them could pan out to be pretty solid, and an extra 3rd as well on the side. Vrbata + Hamhuis could be moved in the same deal, but camp dumps might have to come back, therefore a little more value could be bleeded out of MTL) Vrbata to NYI for 2016 Islander's 3rd, 2017 3rd and Sebastian Collberg (We get a project RW prospect, and some decent picks) As for the rest, like Higgins, Weber and Prust, if we can acquire some late picks for them at the deadline, that would be great. At the draft: Edler is a big one of course, but there are so many different packages for him that I'm not even going to speculate. If we trade him here, I'd like for him to be either packaged with our first to move into the Matthews or Chychrun territory (Not likely), or used to acquire a guy like Johansen, who we solely need. Something like Edler, Sutter, our 1st+...... Aka a lot of value. What would you do with Edler? Then we have guys like Tanev, Hansen, Dorsett and Burrows who are questionable at best to be traded at the draft, but very possible if this management wants to clean house. I hope you enjoyed my proposals. I tried to make them as realistic as possible, and really this was just a fun little exercise to kill some time. Thank you for reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonMexico Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Tip: Don't say realistic in the title of a trade proposal if you don't want to spend countless hours defending yourself from the myopians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 we already traded our 5th to Montreal in the Prust deal plus I don't think Montreal wants more dmen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Honestly if thats all we can fetch for hamhuis id rather keep him. The only package im interested in for him listes is Detroits. Vrbata on the other hand. Whatever we can get for him im good with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickjim23 Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: we already traded our 5th to Montreal in the Prust deal plus I don't think Montreal wants more dmen. nitpicking are we? lol change it to 2017. And believe me, Montreal would kill to have hamhuis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Just now, slickjim23 said: nitpicking are we? lol change it to 2017 Not nitpicking. We can't trade a pick we don't have. I actually think you're being somewhat realistic which is unusual here but again I doubt Montreal wants more defenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickjim23 Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 11 minutes ago, RonMexico said: Tip: Don't say realistic in the title of a trade proposal if you don't want to spend countless hours defending yourself from the myopians. Bring on the thunder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickjim23 Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 6 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Not nitpicking. We can't trade a pick we don't have. I actually think you're being somewhat realistic which is unusual here but again I doubt Montreal wants more defenders. Their fans seem to think otherwise, as well as their management saying they're going all in... I can bet you that they've inquired about both Hamhuis and Vrbata... Canucks can easily retain 50% on each as well. Both would boost their chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 44 minutes ago, slickjim23 said: Their fans seem to think otherwise, as well as their management saying they're going all in... I can bet you that they've inquired about both Hamhuis and Vrbata... Canucks can easily retain 50% on each as well. Both would boost their chances. Montreal is currently carrying 8 waiver eligible defencemen in their roster. Barring an injury or trade picking up Hamhuis gives them 9. No team is going to carry 9 defencemen on their roster. Call it nitpicking if you want. But if they only do the trade for Hamhuis then it's not going to be just for picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I personally think we can get more for Hamhuis. Here are the deals for top-4 defensemen from last year's deadline: - Anaheim traded LW Rene Bourque, C William Karlsson and Anaheim's 2nd-round pick in the 2015 NHL Draft to Columbus for D James Wisniewski and Detroit's 3rd-round pick in 2015 (previously acquired). - Edmonton traded D Jeff Petry to Montreal for a 2nd-round pick in the 2015 NHL Draft plus a conditional draft pick. - Philadelphia traded D Braydon Coburn to Tampa Bay for D Radko Gudas and Tampa Bay’s 1st- and 3rd-round picks in the 2015 NHL Draft. Hamhuis may have regressed a little, but his pedigree and big-game experience should make him more valuable than Wisniewski (cap dump), and Petry (who didn't look as good prior to landing in Montreal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I think if Hamhuis is to waive his NTC San Jose might be the place. He seemed to enjoy playing with Burns at the Worlds last year. Sharks look like a bit of a dark horse and if they get back Couture could make a run. Wonder what could be had in a trade with them, d-prospects, picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fateless Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 While I do think your deals are more realistic than some others, I still think they slightly undervalue Vrbata by a small margin. Vrbata can land us a 1st from a team that is contending (particularly if we hold back 50% of his salary). Yes he has got off to a slow start, but last season is still fresh in the minds of a lot of people that saw him last year. I still don't think getting a 1st for Vrbata is all that far-fetched (obviously it will be a late 1st as the teams interested in acquiring him will be teams contending for the cup). As to Hamhuis, I'm okay with either Montreal's two 2nd rounders or the last option of getting Meloche. Although as others have pointed out, Montreal is currently working with a lot of defensemen already and I just don't see them wanting Hamhuis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 2 hours ago, slickjim23 said: nitpicking are we? lol change it to 2017. And believe me, Montreal would kill to have hamhuis Montreal is loaded on the backend with Vets, the last thing they need is Hamhuis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 1 hour ago, D-Money said: I personally think we can get more for Hamhuis. Here are the deals for top-4 defensemen from last year's deadline: - Anaheim traded LW Rene Bourque, C William Karlsson and Anaheim's 2nd-round pick in the 2015 NHL Draft to Columbus for D James Wisniewski and Detroit's 3rd-round pick in 2015 (previously acquired). - Edmonton traded D Jeff Petry to Montreal for a 2nd-round pick in the 2015 NHL Draft plus a conditional draft pick. - Philadelphia traded D Braydon Coburn to Tampa Bay for D Radko Gudas and Tampa Bay’s 1st- and 3rd-round picks in the 2015 NHL Draft. Hamhuis may have regressed a little, but his pedigree and big-game experience should make him more valuable than Wisniewski (cap dump), and Petry (who didn't look as good prior to landing in Montreal). All those guys are under 31 and coming off of good performances. Hamhuis will be 33 by the time the tradedeadline rolls around, and even though it's a small difference in age, Hamhuis will lose value beause of it. I'm not sure how many GM view age, but IMO if there are with in 2 years of 35 years old I would say "well player A could retire in 2 years and or not resign with the team" which IMO will drive a players value down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 so, if we are wanting hamhuis for the canucks, would we give up these assets.....?....if a team is found that he would go to, but they only offer a third and a b-grade prospect, do you still trade him or keep him?...my point is, it is what a team is willing to part with and not necessarily what we want... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpennyCanuck Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Who is expendable and what are the team needs? Trading for a playoff push vs rebuilding to be come a contender? Vrbata: the way he's been playing recently has raised his market value. but a 35 year old with an expiring contract wont get you too much. Exception to the Erat/Forsberg deal which was horrendous and caused the Was GM's Job. a realistic trade would be a 2nd round pick from a playoff contender and a prospect with top 6 upside Hamhuis: a team that is lacking leadership will pay out the ying yang to get him. his contract is expiring this year and he has a non movement clause. so it will limit where he can be traded even if he agrees to get traded. the most value we could get from hammer is that before there is a trade, the other team could offer an extension. That would maximise his trade value. A realistic trade without an extension in place (if he agrees to move): would be an "A" grade prospect and 2nd round pick With a extension in place: high first round pick, 3 round pick in 2016 or 2017, 5-6th potential defence prospect. Prust: if the Canucks cannot resign him within a month before the trade deadline, they have to move him. A realistic trade would be a third round pick. Or a "B" grade prospect and a low 5th pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 38 minutes ago, smithers joe said: so, if we are wanting hamhuis for the canucks, would we give up these assets.....?....if a team is found that he would go to, but they only offer a third and a b-grade prospect, do you still trade him or keep him?...my point is, it is what a team is willing to part with and not necessarily what we want... That's what most of these "realistic" proposals don't want to think about. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchoball Cannons Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 3 hours ago, ice orca said: I think if Hamhuis is to waive his NTC San Jose might be the place. He seemed to enjoy playing with Burns at the Worlds last year. Sharks look like a bit of a dark horse and if they get back Couture could make a run. Wonder what could be had in a trade with them, d-prospects, picks. Brent Burns is exactly what our team needs. Keep Hamhuis, package Edler, McCann and a 2nd to SJ for Burns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 6 minutes ago, Patchoball Cannons said: Brent Burns is exactly what our team needs. Keep Hamhuis, package Edler, McCann and a 2nd to SJ for Burns Would rather keep McCann. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 17 minutes ago, Patchoball Cannons said: Brent Burns is exactly what our team needs. Keep Hamhuis, package Edler, McCann and a 2nd to SJ for Burns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.