aGENT Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Just now, Quoted said: If it is a team that truly believes he will make the difference between a cup or not, yes, I agree. Just a decent playoff run, less so I would think. Hamhuis is a proven leader and a solid D-man. And I agree, whether or not anyone is calling today doesn't mean much. It's not even so much 'hey, this guy will put us over the top' thinking. The NHL playoffs are very much a war of attrition. If you've got a guy playing in your #5D slot who can step up in to a top 4 role, if required, due to injuries and the other team doesn't... You pay and you pay well for that ability if you think you're one of the top ~5 teams in the league. You may not even end up needing him to fill that role and only use him as a third pair guy but as the saying goes, it's better to have and not need than need and not have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoted Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 45 minutes ago, J.R. said: It's not even so much 'hey, this guy will put us over the top' thinking. The NHL playoffs are very much a war of attrition. If you've got a guy playing in your #5D slot who can step up in to a top 4 role, if required, due to injuries and the other team doesn't... You pay and you pay well for that ability if you think you're one of the top ~5 teams in the league. You may not even end up needing him to fill that role and only use him as a third pair guy but as the saying goes, it's better to have and not need than need and not have. I would put that in the bin of making a difference. Yes, it may be to backfill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gameburn Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 23 hours ago, VIC_CITY said: Ya but we're talking about the tail end of a year in which we aren't going to make the playoffs. Benning has until next fall to reshape the roster. Whether that be trade deadline deals, draft deals, UFA signings...cap space and roster openings are exactly what we need. Plus, just because we trade Hammer doesn't mean we can't sign him July 1st. All we're talking about here is the supposed hole in our backend that this would create for the final part of the regular season. I'm all for bringing Hammer back at a reduced salary next year. This. If we are unlikely to make the playoffs (and this will be even more obvious in 2 weeks) then move our UFAs. It won't be about winning, but about the future. We are out of the habit of thinking of the long-term future here, let alone are we accustomed to the idea of welcoming losing. Nevertheless, fi Shanahan and Babcock can learn to lose for the long-term gain, then we can too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Whew! Luckily none of you are the GM and JB stated he has no intention of trading him away and he has not even discussed anything with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoted Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 8 minutes ago, EdgarM said: Whew! Luckily none of you are the GM and JB stated he has no intention of trading him away and he has not even discussed anything with him. Didn't he say he was going to sit down with Hamhuis to see where's he's at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 3 hours ago, gameburn said: This. If we are unlikely to make the playoffs (and this will be even more obvious in 2 weeks) then move our UFAs. It won't be about winning, but about the future. We are out of the habit of thinking of the long-term future here, let alone are we accustomed to the idea of welcoming losing. Nevertheless, fi Shanahan and Babcock can learn to lose for the long-term gain, then we can too. The Leafs and the Canucks had very different circumstances going into rebuilds. The Leafs had a sick and dysfunctional culture and management that Shanahan decided to strip down to nothing and start over again. It has taken him a full year to get this far and he still has players like Kadri and Lupul to get rid of and he still has no goalie. The Canucks already had a strong and healthy leadership group. They don't have to go out and build that part because it exists already. They are much farther along in this respect. They still have to find players but they will develop much more quickly in a good environment. Look how slowly Edmonton develops with all those 1st over all picks and no winning culture and no playoffs to learn what it takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gameburn Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 10 minutes ago, Crabcakes said: The Leafs and the Canucks had very different circumstances going into rebuilds. The Leafs had a sick and dysfunctional culture and management that Shanahan decided to strip down to nothing and start over again. It has taken him a full year to get this far and he still has players like Kadri and Lupul to get rid of and he still has no goalie. The Canucks already had a strong and healthy leadership group. They don't have to go out and build that part because it exists already. They are much farther along in this respect. They still have to find players but they will develop much more quickly in a good environment. Look how slowly Edmonton develops with all those 1st over all picks and no winning culture and no playoffs to learn what it takes. You have a good argument. Nevertheless, if no one on the present roster had NMC or No -trade deals, I think we might see a different team by now. Our cultural problem is the No trade nonsense of Gillis's time. No way of knowing how tricky these restrictions are for a GM. Benning has mentioned a couple of times that these do complicate things. That's why the Phaneuf deal is so promising: I thought Luongo's contract was a bad one, but Phaneuf's? Between 6 and 35 in the draft are at least 3 D who could be better than any D we have on the team now, with the possible exception of Hamhuis and Hutton. Sergachev and one other might even make the team by December, like Ekblad did. We need more than one draft pick to get a share of this, 2 or three is much better. The second round picks are probably easier to get via trade, so I say try like hell to get at least 3 picks in the top 40 hopefully 4. Dumping/trading UFAs and some of the vets in general has to help with this. Unlike TO: we keep our coach, GM and President, we retain a core we need (Sedins, Tanev, two of the ilk of Hamhuis, Edler, Hansen, or Burr -- but not all four) and shoot the works for this draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 32 minutes ago, gameburn said: You have a good argument. Nevertheless, if no one on the present roster had NMC or No -trade deals, I think we might see a different team by now. Our cultural problem is the No trade nonsense of Gillis's time. No way of knowing how tricky these restrictions are for a GM. Benning has mentioned a couple of times that these do complicate things. That's why the Phaneuf deal is so promising: I thought Luongo's contract was a bad one, but Phaneuf's? Between 6 and 35 in the draft are at least 3 D who could be better than any D we have on the team now, with the possible exception of Hamhuis and Hutton. Sergachev and one other might even make the team by December, like Ekblad did. We need more than one draft pick to get a share of this, 2 or three is much better. The second round picks are probably easier to get via trade, so I say try like hell to get at least 3 picks in the top 40 hopefully 4. Dumping/trading UFAs and some of the vets in general has to help with this. Unlike TO: we keep our coach, GM and President, we retain a core we need (Sedins, Tanev, two of the ilk of Hamhuis, Edler, Hansen, or Burr -- but not all four) and shoot the works for this draft. I was talking about culture with the Canucks. Nothing about players. As for that, I would like to see more picks this year too. I think that they need to preserve their culture. Benning seems bent on having the winning environment and going for the playoffs. Fair enough, I'll get over it. The two go hand in hand. But this means if he's moving out vets (like Vrbata), he wants players who can help win back, not picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 12 hours ago, Quoted said: Didn't he say he was going to sit down with Hamhuis to see where's he's at? Don't you think if he really wanted to deal him he would have already had a discussion with him? I am guessing he has already had a chat with Vrbata, and Prust, and Weber, and Higgins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
springer Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 My two bits worth... Every good team needs some veteran leadership. What do we have left on our defensive core? Edler and Hamhuis. And, IMHO, of the two, Dan is the better D-Man...by far...with all kinds of experience at every level. Check out both their histories regarding plus-minus with the Canucks... Hamhuis: 6 seasons - +89 - this season +6 Edler: 10 seasons - -6 - this season -8 Next, whom would you rather have a mentor and leadership role model for the young guns coming in? Again, Dan is one of the classiest, solid character players on the team, if not in the entire league. Not knocking Edler, he's just not of the same caliber. Then it's been made known that Hamhuis will take a home town discount to stay here, as opposed to the all too common "buck up big time or I'm outta here!" mentality around the league. In and of itself, this speaks to his character and loyalty to our team. We need some of this to have a good team. My guess is that Hamhuis would take an extension for three years that pays him basically the same as he's getting now. On the other hand, he gets to July and free agency, he'll pull considerably more. So the notion of trade him now and sign him later is, IMHO, a lot of wishful nonsense. In Hamhuis we know for a certainty what we are getting in return, which is a solid top four D-Man, leadership, and loyalty to the team come hell or high water...as opposed to taking a flyer on a draft pick or prospect. Frankly, I'd be dangling Edler at the deadline before I'd ever consider cutting Hamhuis free. FWIW, and as a confessed fan of Dan Hamhuis. Edit... I've been a cheerleader for Edler since day one. He has the size and the skill to be a game changer...and at times he's shown it. But the problem is, you never know which version of Edler is going to show up one day to the next, one season to the next. Ever since he got whacked by the league for a hit he laid out, he's played a more reserved and cautious game. And clearly Torts totally unhinged his game. Which is to say, Hamhuis has been a consistent performer ever since he joined the Canucks. Indeed, playing with Bieksa, this pairing was one of the best in the league. We lost a lot of heart and team leadership when we let Bieksa go. IMHO, we can't afford to lose any more, especially in the midst of a rebuild. Which is the same reason that we need to hold onto Burrows, who breathes and bleeds Canuck hockey. Oh, and why is Dan playing at the top of his game now? My guess is that he perhaps saw his hockey career pass in front of his eyes, and he had lots of time to think about it. It takes one helluva good man to get drilled like he did, and then come back more fearless and charged up than before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoted Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 6 hours ago, EdgarM said: Don't you think if he really wanted to deal him he would have already had a discussion with him? I am guessing he has already had a chat with Vrbata, and Prust, and Weber, and Higgins. Or maybe he already has. Or with his agent only. As fans we're not in the loop and not always given the total picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyhee Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 8 hours ago, springer said: My two bits worth... Every good team needs some veteran leadership. What do we have left on our defensive core? Edler and Hamhuis. And, IMHO, of the two, Dan is the better D-Man...by far...with all kinds of experience at every level. Check out both their histories regarding plus-minus with the Canucks... Hamhuis: 6 seasons - +89 - this season +6 Edler: 10 seasons - -6 - this season -8 ... 1. Two bits? I remember about 15 years or so ago reading that it was estimated each internet message or email sent carried a cost of about 2 cents. We have inflation! 2. You are a brave person quoting +/- on this forum as proof of who is the better defenceman. Fwiw, I think Hamhuis clearly was the better defenceman. These days as they age and have injury problems that hasn't been clear, but I agree with your point that Hamhuis is worth having. 3. With Edler out for six weeks (almost the rest of the season) it gets less likely imo that the Canucks will try to move Hammer. They don't have so many top 4 d-men that they can lose one to injury and then give another away without it appearing to be an obvious tank and without creating the situation where the end of the season is really, really painful to watch. Of course that would depend on the return if Hammer is willing to waive. 4. Again, with Edler out for six weeks, if the Canucks aren't going to trade Hamhuis I think they have to give some consideration to trying to sign him to a reasonable extension. As was said in the post quoted above (though I snipped most of the post) he should be a good person to have as a mentor, a good character person in the locker room and on the ice and when he's healthy it's looking like he can still play. (This is coming from someone who not long ago was saying nobody would trade for him until he was back from injury and showing at what level he was able to perform. He's back and so far he's impressing.) Of course, with any player in his 30's who has suffered from injury the last two seasons, causing his play to decline, the team will want a relatively short term and most players Hammer's age are looking for a longer one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toyotasfan Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 The Canucks are rebuilding because in the past they have never successfully parlayed UFA's into futures. Combined with bad draft history of course. The core got old and stale , thanks Torts. Please trade Hamhuis for a first rounder and if he comes back it's win win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Positive Canuck Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 The most obvious course of action for both team and player would be trade to a contender, Hamhuis contract up needs to showcase himself around the league. If he proves he is worthy for extending he can prove it in the playoffs with the Caps/Pens/Stars/Ducks/Kings etc... I only want him back if its 2 years max at no more than 3M. Even then I'm hesitant, this team is trying to get younger , faster and bigger. HT Discount otherwise we go with bigger men with more snarl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Just a quick question: Looking at the forum, a lot of us wants to trade Hamhuis at the deadline and have him re-sign for less. At best, that is a dream and even if the dream comes true, we have this situation: Left Defence: Edler Sbisa Hutton Pedan (?) Tryamkin (?) Right Defence: Tanev Biega Now, Biega is solid, but he is not a top 4 defenceman. Given that our right side needs a lot of attention and if we can sign the two Russian giants, it gives us 5 left-handed defencemen, is re-signing Hamhuis a good idea ? Would we rather have Hamhuis over Edler/Sbisa ? And lastly, how good is Sbisa, Hutton, Edler and Hamhuis at playing the right side ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuporbust Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Ah nevermind. I was wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baer. Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 We sign a right handed D instead of bring back Hamhuis. Problem solved. People put too much sentimism into hockey. Hamhuis is just another player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 4 minutes ago, Baer. said: We sign a right handed D instead of bring back Hamhuis. Problem solved. People put too much sentimism into hockey. Hamhuis is just another player. That is an obvious choice but on the other hand, if Hamhuis took a paycut- say a 3/3.5 million a year deal, that would be a steal. My question is, can he play the right side or can any of our left handed defencemen ( edler, sbisa, Hutton) also play the right side ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baer. Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 9 minutes ago, canuckistani said: That is an obvious choice but on the other hand, if Hamhuis took a paycut- say a 3/3.5 million a year deal, that would be a steal. My question is, can he play the right side or can any of our left handed defencemen ( edler, sbisa, Hutton) also play the right side ? I'd much rather see that money given to a younger player or big name free agent. Hamhuis isn't somebody a rebuilding team needs. If I was JB I wouldn't bring him back. There's nothing he can offer us. I'd much rather see him have success on another team anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xereau Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Ride out this crap season with whatever, go after a UFA RHD in off season. Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.