[Rumour] Blackhawks' Trevor Daley available.

[Toews]

5 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Hamonic would give us future back. He's 25, not 32.

I was originally gunning for a Hamhuis + Higgins + 2nd for Hamonic but with Hamhuis out we may need to tweak some things.

Sbisa + Higgins + 2nd + 3rd + Pedan/Biega/Weber for Hamonic + 5th?

Let's imagine a scenario where I am Snow and you are Benning. I would ask you to draw up the papers.

When it came time to signing them, I would ball them up and throw them in your face.

Sorry unda but your proposal is terrible and I have to agree with Lock here, you seriously underestimate the guile of GMs in the NHL. Garth Snow is not Mike Millbury.

 

 

 

[DownUndaCanuck]

1 hour ago, Wild Sean Monahan said:

Ballsy? I'd say more like stupid. With Hamhuis out long term we're looking st that first round pick probably being in the top10 of a good draft. 

It'd be a risk. Throw Hamonic into our lineup and suddenly our team is much better, he fills a lot of our needs and I don't think we end up bottom 10 with this defence, especially when Hamhuis returns:

Edler - Hamonic

Hamhuis - Tanev

Hutton - Bartkowski

 

Regardless of whether JB makes a deal for a defenceman or not, this team cannot simply continue to ignore their down-right pathetic depth on defence. We went from 2011, losing Ehrhoff and Salo and replacing them with Garrison. Then we lose Garrison and don't replace him. Then we lose Bieksa, Corrado and Clendening and don't replace them. It's been stepping stone after stepping stone of losing defensive depth until we're finally left with the shambles we see on the ice today, and Benning is either too ignorant or stupidly content to address our real need.

If we really tank it and end up with a top-10 or top-5 pick and Benning doesn't draft one of the many A-grade defensive prospects this Draft, mark my words this team isn't going to contend for a Cup for YEARS. We're not going anywhere until we really address this defence in a big way, and it's not done by signing a 7th defenceman that no one else wants like Bartkowski. It takes a gutsy trade to do so. Edmonton have tried by trading for Reinhart, and Calgary really sucked them up and made a HUGE trade for Hamilton which is slowly starting to pay dividens now.

That's the sort of trade Benning needs to do to fix this terrible team. He's made the necessary trades before up front, but lets see if he can do the same with our defenders.

[86Viking]

It sure is, I wonder if Snow would consider a deal with Sbisa in it? He is signed past this year

Sbisa, Higgins/jensen/grenier/baertschi-NYI choice plus a draft pick tbd

[riffraff]

17 hours ago, Fanuck said:

Younger, faster, grittier...he ticks none of those boxes.

Pass.

I was just going to say "no".

 

but this was a less lazy post.

[Toews]

Daley is a mediocre bottom pairing defenseman. That trade looked bad when it was made but it looks even horrible when you see him play on a daily basis. It would be highway robbery if Bowman can get even a 2nd round pick out of Daley. But then again the Preds paid a 1st for Cody Franson last year, so maybe a 2nd for Daley is not entirely unreasonable. 

The whole he was a great player for Dallas is also a myth, he wasn't that great over there either. His scoring blinded everyone from the shortcomings in his game. Usually Q has a proclivity to have a few guys in his doghouse every year. Many of the times that deserves criticism as he doesn't give some promising players chances to improve their game in the regular season. Daley isn't one of those cases, he is terrible. Can't wait till he is gone.

[Fanuck]

11 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Too bad we're not in a selling position. Imagine what we could have had for Garrison at this moment in time?

Absolutely.

Not to mention what Juice's value would be right now! 

[D-Money]

18 hours ago, The Lock said:

Daley is 31 with a 3.3 mil cap hit and 1 year left on his contract after this season. That being said, the price is probably correct. Defense is going to be expensive at the moment as many teams are reportedly looking for defenders.

Daley would likely help us out; however, at a 3,3 mil cap hit, he'd be our 5th defenseman at over a 3mil cap hit. To me, it seems like one of those situations where it could happen, but it probably shouldn't. He's only 1 year younger than Hamhuis and hasn't worked out in Chicago.

Yeah, who in their right mind would spend over 3 million on a #5 defenseman?

*cough*Sbisa*cough*

Daley is not as bad as he has looked in Chicago. But he's not as good as his stats liked in Dallas either. Not the worst idea to buy low, even if it's just too sell high again next year.

[Sean Monahan]

8 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

It'd be a risk. Throw Hamonic into our lineup and suddenly our team is much better, he fills a lot of our needs and I don't think we end up bottom 10 with this defence, especially when Hamhuis returns:

Edler - Hamonic

Hamhuis - Tanev

Hutton - Bartkowski

 

Regardless of whether JB makes a deal for a defenceman or not, this team cannot simply continue to ignore their down-right pathetic depth on defence. We went from 2011, losing Ehrhoff and Salo and replacing them with Garrison. Then we lose Garrison and don't replace him. Then we lose Bieksa, Corrado and Clendening and don't replace them. It's been stepping stone after stepping stone of losing defensive depth until we're finally left with the shambles we see on the ice today, and Benning is either too ignorant or stupidly content to address our real need.

If we really tank it and end up with a top-10 or top-5 pick and Benning doesn't draft one of the many A-grade defensive prospects this Draft, mark my words this team isn't going to contend for a Cup for YEARS. We're not going anywhere until we really address this defence in a big way, and it's not done by signing a 7th defenceman that no one else wants like Bartkowski. It takes a gutsy trade to do so. Edmonton have tried by trading for Reinhart, and Calgary really sucked them up and made a HUGE trade for Hamilton which is slowly starting to pay dividens now.

That's the sort of trade Benning needs to do to fix this terrible team. He's made the necessary trades before up front, but lets see if he can do the same with our defenders.

You're seriously overvaluing Hamonic. I'll take Sbisa and say, Juolevi, over him ANAIC. Ever watched Hamonic?

[DownUndaCanuck]

2 hours ago, Wild Sean Monahan said:

You're seriously overvaluing Hamonic. I'll take Sbisa and say, Juolevi, over him ANAIC. Ever watched Hamonic?

I have actually. He's a physical beast and brings exactly what the Canucks lack. Essentially a stronger, more physical Tanev. He's playing top minutes on a Cup contending team and is their top pairing righty. Brings next to no offence but makes up for that in his great board play and ability to box out opponents in the crease. These are IMO our biggest weaknesses as a team - we have plenty of smaller, less physical defencemen who struggle at clearing rebounds and traffic and that's exactly what Hamonic brings.

A more physical Tanev / rich man's Sbisa or Garrison.

[Sean Monahan]

3 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I have actually. He's a physical beast and brings exactly what the Canucks lack. Essentially a stronger, more physical Tanev. He's playing top minutes on a Cup contending team and is their top pairing righty. Brings next to no offence but makes up for that in his great board play and ability to box out opponents in the crease. These are IMO our biggest weaknesses as a team - we have plenty of smaller, less physical defencemen who struggle at clearing rebounds and traffic and that's exactly what Hamonic brings.

A more physical Tanev / rich man's Sbisa or Garrison.

No he's a good d man but overrated on these boards since it surfaced he wants a trade. Personally I wouldn't pay sbisa + a non-lottery protected pick. 

[DownUndaCanuck]

Just now, Wild Sean Monahan said:

No he's a good d man but overrated on these boards since it surfaced he wants a trade. Personally I wouldn't pay sbisa + a non-lottery protected pick. 

I was always saying Hamhuis + Higgins + 2nd would have been plenty. Rumour has it Snow turned down Byfuglien for Hamonic straight up which is concerning, that's why we'd have to give a bit more.

[Sean Monahan]

5 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I was always saying Hamhuis + Higgins + 2nd would have been plenty. Rumour has it Snow turned down Byfuglien for Hamonic straight up which is concerning, that's why we'd have to give a bit more.

At a certain point the price can become too high and negate the benefit of the trade.

[The Lock]

4 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I was always saying Hamhuis + Higgins + 2nd would have been plenty. Rumour has it Snow turned down Byfuglien for Hamonic straight up which is concerning, that's why we'd have to give a bit more.

Except "more" does not necessarily mean "more mediocre items". More, in this case, would mean offering a larger asset we don't have.

This is why we're unlikely to get Hamonic.

[The Lock]

4 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I was always saying Hamhuis + Higgins + 2nd would have been plenty. Rumour has it Snow turned down Byfuglien for Hamonic straight up which is concerning, that's why we'd have to give a bit more.

Except "more" does not necessarily mean "more mediocre items". More, in this case, would mean offering a larger asset we don't have.

This is why we're unlikely to get Hamonic.

[DownUndaCanuck]

20 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Except "more" does not necessarily mean "more mediocre items". More, in this case, would mean offering a larger asset we don't have.

This is why we're unlikely to get Hamonic.

I'd hardly call Chris Higgins or a 2nd round pick "more mediocre items". There's a valuable utility 3rd/4th line forward who has been a playoff performer and the Islanders lack that sort of gritty PK expert with veteran experience.

Then there's a 2nd rounder which could be as high as the 30s or early 40s so is almost a late 1st round pick.

The trade built around Hamhuis for Hamonic but those are two very good pieces IMO that bridge the gap. You're not going to get much better value than that. The Islanders are NOT going to be able to trade Hamonic straight up for a defenceman of exact value, especially considering the situation Snow's in. He better take what he's given and he's being pressured to do so, and Hamhuis + Higgins + 2nd is a damn good deal for both sides all things considered.

[Sean Monahan]

Guys like Higgins are struggling to land contracts in FA. There's little to no value there.

[Zerox]

42 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I was always saying Hamhuis + Higgins + 2nd would have been plenty. Rumour has it Snow turned down Byfuglien for Hamonic straight up which is concerning, that's why we'd have to give a bit more.

Snow wants Tanev, Horvat and a pick. Benning said no. Quit daydreaming.

[The Lock]

19 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I'd hardly call Chris Higgins or a 2nd round pick "more mediocre items". There's a valuable utility 3rd/4th line forward who has been a playoff performer and the Islanders lack that sort of gritty PK expert with veteran experience.

Then there's a 2nd rounder which could be as high as the 30s or early 40s so is almost a late 1st round pick.

The trade built around Hamhuis for Hamonic but those are two very good pieces IMO that bridge the gap. You're not going to get much better value than that. The Islanders are NOT going to be able to trade Hamonic straight up for a defenceman of exact value, especially considering the situation Snow's in. He better take what he's given and he's being pressured to do so, and Hamhuis + Higgins + 2nd is a damn good deal for both sides all things considered.

They are more mediocre items when you're comparing them to a guy like Hamonic. That's the point. Unless if you're giving them Edler, the Sedins, a 1st rounder, or a prospect like Horvat, most of what we have available are going to be mediocre to them.

Would you trade away the Sedins for 8 2nd round picks? Actually, a better question, would you have traded the Sedins away back in 2010 for 8 2nd round picks? That's essentially what you're asking them to do in this case.

[Kragar]

No interest in Daley.  One great year in Dallas, in that time the team sucked defensively.  

Why would they let him go after a career year?  Meh.  He's not big, and doesn't bring a tough game.  Don't see the point of having him on the Canucks.