Breakdown: Canucks trade deadline for Dummies.

[oldnews]

*NOTE: if you're going to quote this, please select a part that you're referring to - and delete out the rest (or all of the text if your comment is general) to save space / make it easier for users on mobile.

 

 

We've heard all the noise - the drama, baiting, speculating, trolling, protesting, the expectations, disappointment, calling for management’s heads….the usual reactions.  Fun stuff no doubt - and certainly precipitated by the trolls at TSN, the Province, SN - we know who they are – they had their airtime.

 

But now that the dust has settled:  a look at the underlying reality without the slant and emotion of high and low expectations.

 

 

 

An assessment of the Canucks trade deadline decision-making.  

 

 

Most of you probably won't like it - it won't confirm the bulk of what was said and what the herd heard.  

 

 

 

Dan Hamhuis

 

Briefly – Dan Hamhuis has been an elite two way defenseman that came here at no assets cost and helped propel this franchise to a contender.    Canadian Olympian.   Averaged 25-30 pts a season in 6 years here,  playing some of the harder minutes on the Canucks blueline, he has been a cumulative +84 (a statistic that doesn’t mean much when taken out of context, but in the context of Hamhuis’ play, quite impressive).   Dan’s underlying/possession numbers have been simply elite in his time here.  His first five seasons here – every year  he was a player getting less than 50% offensive zone starts, facing very strong quality of competition, always a positive corsi and usually, exceptionally strong  – quite simply, outstanding underlying numbers.

 

Now here’s the dig.  That was then, right?  That’s great and all, but what about now, what about the future?

 

This season was slightly different in a couple senses.  Hamhuis’ minutes were not quite as hard as they’ve been through the duration of his time here.  Partnered primarily with Bartkowski and Weber, his ozone starts were upwards of 50% for the first time in Vancouver – however, Dan’s corsi, correspondingly, was also the best on the Vancouver blueline – the only positive corsi on in fact, and better than either of his partners’.   And of course Dan suffered a serious injury mid-season and has just recently returned to the lineup (albeit it has not seemed to effect his performance - he's been excellent since returning.)    On this point however, there have been reports - by the likes of Spector in Alberta, that Hamhuis has been soft and hasn't been himself since the injury (imo that is nonsense).

 

If that's the case – if Hamhuis is still a solid top 4 NHL defenseman, why didn’t they get get something for him?   Why not get whatever you can, after all, this franchise has had a difficult, injury-riddled season, and is in the process of integrating their youth into the lineup.  The question everyone is asking - why didn’t they capitalize on the opportunity to add to the pick and prospect pool?

 

 

 

The context:

 

1)      Hamhuis  is recovering from a serious injury.  Had only just returned a week into February with the deadline mere weeks away.  Whether there would be a possibility of renting him at all was only just unfolding shortly before the deadline.

 

2)      His family is expecting a child in the midst of what would be a playoff run had he left to a playoff team

 

3)      Hamhuis wants to stay in Vancouver, wants to return to Vancouver.

 

4)      Hamhuis  was willing to waive for the right circumstance, but certainly did not appear thrilled with the prospect of leaving.  He appeared to be making a concession for the franchise – in the midst of recovery and what could easily be conceived as more important underlying family matters, playing in the playoffs may not have been his primary interest - who knows.

 

5)      Hamhuis would be taking a risk in leaving – a grueling, Western Conference playoff run would be challenging under the circumstances of recovery, and moreover, could pose a risk, if injured, to his subsequent contract.  If he returns to this franchise, a happy, healthy, recovered and rested Dan Hamhuis is a key asset to this franchise next season.

 

6)      A lot is made of the Canucks alleged lack of blueline prospects – if that were in fact true, there is a dual implication – one the one hand the need to add, but on the other, it would only serve to underline the importance of him returning to bridge this franchise’s blueline moving forward.

 

7)      Hamhuis will be one of, if not the best free agent defenseman on the market this summer.

 

8)      Hamhuis is not leveraging his negotiating position with this franchise – he has made it exceedingly clear that he wants and prefers to stay and return as a Vancouver Canuck.

 

9)      Hamhuis remains a top 4 blueliner – and unless that value were met, there is no point in moving him.  “Just taking anything” is nonsense that has been repeated endlessly, but only a fool makes a concession like that, particularly to asset rich franchises.  You simply do not gift a player like Dan Hamhuis to rival Western Conference contenders, particularly under all the mitigating circumstances.  That is literally a non-starter.  You set the value and if it’s met, you make a move – if not, you don’t bend over to the whims of a buyer’s market.  “Reading” the market is only relevant if you are dead set on moving the player in the first place– that was not and should not have been the case.

 

 

 

Given that context, my belief is that the Canucks approached the trade deadline with a line drawn – if they were able to command a sizeable return in the form they were looking for they’d entertain moving Dan Hamhuis to one of the franchise’s he waived for – Chicago or Dallas.

 

However, a few things underline the challenge there.

 

1)      Best case scenario, Dan would be rented for a solid return and return to Vancouver, ala Antoine Vermette the year before.  However, the fact Hamhuis wanted to stay and return was no secret and moreover, despite strong play since returning from injury, it remained the fact that he was recovering from a serious injury.  Both those things obviously mitigate Hamhuis’ value relative to other options – and the potential buyers would have to be willing to spend for a pure rental.  Other options did not necessarily carry those conditions.

 

2)      The market was limited to Western contenders – both of whom had the assets to make a move, but weren’t necessarily offering returns in the value and form the Canucks were looking for.  Volume of middling assets weren’t necessarily worth moving on imo – a point I’ll return to.

 

 

 

The Chicago Blackhawks:

 

Reported stories regarding the Hawks – Canucks allegedly didn’t move fast enough, Hamhuis “waffled” – imo the ignorant trolling and speculation of media cling-ons with a history of premature ‘reports’, weak, unsubstantiated ‘sources’ and chronic inaccuracy - that didn’t and still don’t really know what actually transpired.  There is no point buying into one story or another – looking at the underlying context imo is far more worthwhile.

 

 

Fact: Chicago elected to spend on Andrew Ladd.  The other fact that gets lost in the noise – they still had the opportunity to acquire Hamhuis afterwards, but simply did not make it happen.  Was there an either/or Andrew Ladd deadline?  Imo, if the Hawks weren’t prepared to move prospects like Pokka, Hartman or comparable value in picks, a deal didn’t necessarily make sense for Vancouver.  The narrative is that the Hawks wanted Hamhuis, were disappointed, frustrated – whatever (quite frankly, who cares?) – they could have made it happen regardless of the Ladd deal, if they were willing to pay the price, but they didn’t.   There is no ‘fault’ involved on Vancouver’s part.  That is merely slanted drama.

 

 

The Dallas Stars:

 

The Stars had the option of a defenseman that might return and a player that would likely be a  pure rental.  Moreover, the Calgary Flames were willing to take a return composed of Jokipakka, Pollock and a late 2^nd.   Dan Hamhuis is the better asset – but was he the better deal for Dallas?  Aside from the likelihood he would not return to Dallas, what was the form of the deal the Canucks were wanting?  This is no small detail – imo the Canucks may have expected comparable overall value – but in all likelihood in the form of a RHD/pmd /Julius Honka as opposed to three middling assets.  Mere speculation on my part, but the organizational needs of Vancouver are not the same as the Calgary Flames.  Jokipakka is not necessarily the (type of) blueliner this franchise is needing/looking for in a return and despite decent cumulative asset value, the return the Flames got does not necessarily make sense for Vancouver.  Hamhuis in my opinion is the better player – an opinion shared by most – but under the circumstances, his trade value slips back to comparable to Russell – and the form that the expected return takes is important.

 

 

Dallas elected to move on the Russell deal, and reportedly circled back with a late lowball.  Again, refusing a lowball under the circumstances is a no-brainer.  If it comes down to accepting an exceedingly compromising return, and potentially burning your valuable bridge with Dan Hamhuis, imo that is an easy decision to make.

 

 

The bottom line – the best case scenario was a possible, but difficult and somewhat unlikely one – that certainly could not be banked upon (despite lofty expectations of so many) – getting worthwhile value and bringing the player back.  I hoped that could be the case – but I did not expect it would.  It did not turn out – and imo – is no great loss – certainly nowhere near relative to the level of upset and outrage. 

 

 

The fact remains that both sides have the option of re-signing – and in the end, that is far greater value than gifting Dan Hamhuis to a contender for a lowball.   You work on it, survey the market, see what is possible, but in the end, I am glad this management group did not make lowball concessions to either of these franchises.   That would have been unacceptable, desperate, and an insult to Dan Hamhuis.   If these franchises weren’t prepared to pay the price in a form that made sense, so be it. 

 

 

Some of the commentary of ‘analysts’ was downright assinine – guys like former CBJ GM and Sportsnet talking head Doug MacLean suggesting that he’d simply have told Hamhuis that he’s not coming back and taken anything he could get in return.  It’s no surprise that he’s no longer employed as an NHL manager and peer to the likes of PJ Stock and Glen Healy.  One of the best pending UFA defensemen who is willing to return at a non-frenzy UFA hometown price - and some folks wonder why he wasn’t unloaded for cap dump value.  This is why I’ve titled this thread “trade deadline for Dummies” – because the vocal majority have offered literally nothing of analytical value.  

 

 

All things considered, I’m glad Dan Hamhuis remains a Canuck at this point – and hope that remains the case moving forward.  He represents a great deal of value to this franchise – and has stated that he appreciates the way management handled this situation, and the context of the deadline.  Hamhuis has been worth his cap hit every single day he's been a Vancouver Canuck.   In all likelihood he returns - and makes this team far better than any lowball return - as well as representing potential asset value they might trade in the future, depending on how the team progresses.

 

 

 

Benning and the Canucks handled it as it should have been handled.

 

 

 

Radim Vrbata

 

Vrbata reportedly left money on the table to come to Vancouver and play with the Sedins.  No assets cost – and literally, outstanding production in his first season here – his signing was a literal no brainer. 

 

 

For tactical reasons that have been discussed at length on these boards, Vrbata did not make an ideal 5on5 winger on the Sedin line however, despite some aspects of his game that fit well.  A right handed shot, a pitch and catch possession player, a solid defensive forward that had spent his share of time on Phoenix’s shutdown line, Vrbata has a lot of solid attributes to complement the Sedins, however, one thing he is not is a hard areas player that gets in aggressively on the forecheck, creating space for his linemates.  As Henrik noted, those tasks are left to the Sedins with Vrbata on their wing – and for that key reason, alternative wingers were better options despite Vrbata’s strengths.  Vrbata remained an ideal first unit powerplay fixture, but otherwise was utilized – reasonably so – on the second line with young forwards Horvat and Baertschi, who struggled early, but gained some momentum as the season progressed.  The stated reason for that change was scoring “balance”, but it was not that simple – and focusing on outlining tactical issues/challenges is generally not a solid way to message decisions like that.

 

 

Vrbata struggled to finish this year – uncharacteristically.  A player that scored 30 goals the previous season, and touted as one of if not the best UFA signing of the previous summer, had a season defined by struggle and frustration.  In addition, he and Horvat, in the absence of Sutter, were, needless to say, not seeing the type of situational minutes you’d consider ideal to the kind of production Vrbata is capable of.  

 

 

But here is the kicker.  Vrbata not only struggled this year – but he was injured/questionable heading into the trade deadline.   It was definitely not a trade deadline where many forwards were moved for decent returns– and the examples are obvious.

 

 

Brandon Pirri, returned a 6^th round pick.  33 goals in his last 111 games - not a UFA, but an RFA whose rights are now retained by Anaheim..  The market for him was a 6^th round pick.  Surprising to say the least that Dale Tallon settled for that return instead of simply retaining his rights, but he took the 6th.  

 

 

P.A Parenteau had 32 points, 16 goals at 1.5 million for the Leafs *(prorated to about $400 k in cap at the deadline) – and the fire sale Leafs couldn't get anything for him.  I thought he'd have gotten moved for a late pick tbh, but evidently there were no buyers.

 

 

That was the reality of the trade deadline market.  There is no fault on behalf of Jim Benning -  people can hindsight and pretend that the Vrbata signing wasn’t worthwhile, or that Benning exercises poor judgement in his player evaluations – that imo is utter nonsense.  It is unfortunate/disappointing that the team couldn’t gain an asset, but at the same time, there was no asset loss/spent in the first place.  People can make a ‘loss’ of it if they elect that perspective, but really, the sum of the ‘loss’ at this deadline, would still remain a longshot mid to late pick at best.  Not worth the noise.

 

 

The bottom line:  there was no decision for Benning to make here – Vrbata’s play, his health, and the market defined him as unmovable at the deadline.  I appreciate the fact he elected to come here in the first place.

 

 

 

 

The remainder of the Canuck assets that were not moved – I’m not going to spend much time on.  Players whose season was marked by injuries – Prust, Higgins – that is the reality of the NHL – and this deadline was not exactly one where a great deal of player movement took place.  Higgins is a player I am happy remains in the system – and could still be an important asset, or moved for a return next season should he regain the form that has made him a literal steal and top shelf cap value in his years here.  Regardless of how that turns out, Chris Higgins, like Dan Hamhuis, owes this franchise literally nothing.  Weber, like Vrbata – his production tailed off – no one expected him to have value at the deadline.  Bartkowski  - I like the signing – he was a good, serviceable defenseman at a reasonable cap value.  I did not expect to see Bartkowski moved at the deadline.  Cracknell was a nice signing who played well, exceeded expectations – did not expect him to be dealt, but have to question a bottom-feeder like Edmonton claiming him down the stretch when they’re out of the playoffs and might be opting to get their youth some minutes and experience.  The positive for Cracknell is that he’ll earn an NHL paycheque if Edmonton indeed keeps him on their roster.

 

 

 

Markus Granlund

 

An early deadline move I like.  Hunter Shinkaruk is a player I also like – but I believe that Granlund has as much, if not more upside, with a game that translates better at the NHL level, and is more versatile.  Where Shinkaruk might have played here is a greater question mark, with Daniel Sedin and Baertschi owning the top six LW spots.  I like the decision the Canucks made to opt for the more proven asset and I think Granlund will be a solid fit with some of the young Canucks he’ll be playing with.  Excited to see his progression here – he has looked good early in a Canucks uniform.   An excellent decision as far as I’m concerned, despite it’s unpopularity.

 

Philip Larsen

 

A relative sleeper move amongst all the noise of the deadline – his speed, offensive instincts and upside are a relative no brainer at the price of a 5^th round pick.  The risk/benefit potential of acquiring his rights is a move that had to be made – the fact he did not turn out in Deadmonton and was not interested in returning there - are not deterrents - in the least.   Another player whose progression will be fun to watch - he is precisely the type of player the team is looking to add to the mix of their blueline.

 

 

 

A best case scenario that didn’t work out, a ‘lost’ mid to late pick, a good hockey trade of  young forwards, and the acquisition of a defenseman, for a 5^th round pick, that has the potential to be every bit as much a gain as the perceived pick ‘loss’ of this deadline.

 

Benning’s trade deadline performance - not really the failure it’s being portrayed to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the dead horse below (ironically accompanied by "in Benning We Trust") - the trade deadline was a few days before this post (I realize this is the twitter generation, with short attention spans, but)  the issue isn't quite dead yet - this perspective is anything but beating up Benning (as has been done to death), and I imagine we'll continue to hear complaining about this deadline for a long time on these boards.

[luongotv]

[TheCammer]

52 minutes ago, oldnews said:

We've heard all the noise - the drama, baiting, speculating, trolling, protesting, the expectations, disappointment, calling for management’s heads….the usual reactions.  Fun stuff no doubt - and certainly precipitated by the trolls at TSN, the Province, SN - we know who they are – they had their airtime.

 

But now that the dust has settled:  a look at the underlying reality without the slant and emotion of high and low expectations.

 

 

 

An assessment of the Canucks trade deadline decision-making.  

 

 

Most of you probably won't like it - it won't confirm the bulk of what was said and what the herd heard.  

 

 

 

Dan Hamhuis

 

Briefly – Dan Hamhuis has been an elite two way defenseman that came here at no assets cost and helped propel this franchise to a contender.    Canadian Olympian.   Averaged 25-30 pts a season in 6 years here,  playing some of the harder minutes on the Canucks blueline, he has been a cumulative +84 (a statistic that doesn’t mean much when taken out of context, but in the context of Hamhuis’ play, quite impressive).   Dan’s underlying/possession numbers have been simply elite in his time here.  His first five seasons here – every year  he was a player getting less than 50% offensive zone starts, facing very strong quality of competition, always a positive corsi and usually, exceptionally strong  – quite simply, outstanding underlying numbers.

 

Now here’s the dig.  That was then, right?  That’s great and all, but what about now, what about the future?

 

This season was slightly different in a couple senses.  Hamhuis’ minutes were not quite as hard as they’ve been through the duration of his time here.  Partnered primarily with Bartkowski and Weber, his ozone starts were upwards of 50% for the first time in Vancouver – however, Dan’s corsi, correspondingly, was also the best on the Vancouver blueline – the only positive corsi on in fact, and better than either of his partners’.

 

If that’s the case – if Hamhuis is still a solid top 4 NHL defenseman, why didn’t they get get something for him?   Why not get whatever you can, after all, this franchise has had a difficult, injury-riddled season, and is in the process of integrating their youth into the lineup.  The question everyone is asking - why didn’t they capitalize on the opportunity to add to the pick and prospect pool?

 

 

 

The context:

 

1)      Hamhuis  is recovering from a serious injury.

 

2)      His family is expecting a child in the midst of what would be a playoff run had he left to a playoff team

 

3)      Hamhuis wants to stay in Vancouver and want to return to Vancouver.

 

4)      Hamhuis  was willing to waive for the right circumstance, but certainly did not appear thrilled with the prospect of leaving.  He was making a concession for the franchise – in the midst of recovery and what could easily be conceived as more important underlying family matters.

 

5)      Hamhuis would be taking a risk in leaving – a grueling, Western Conference playoff run would be challenging under the circumstances of recovery, and moreover, could pose a risk, if injured, to his subsequent contract.  If he returns to this franchise, a happy, healthy, recovered and rested Dan Hamhuis is a key asset to this franchise next season.

 

6)      A lot is made of the Canucks alleged lack of blueline prospects – if that were in fact true, there is a dual implication – one the one hand the need to add, but on the other, it would only serve to underline the importance of him returning to bridge this franchise’s blueline moving forward.

 

7)      Hamhuis will be one of, if not the best free agent defenseman on the market this summer.

 

8)      Hamhuis is not leveraging his negotiating position with this franchise – he has made it exceedingly clear that he wants and prefers to stay and return as a Vancouver Canuck.

 

9)      Hamhuis remains a top 4 blueliner – and unless that value were met, there is no point in moving him.  “Just taking anything” is nonsense that has been repeated endlessly, but only a fool makes a concession like that to, particularly to asset rich franchises.  You simply do not gift a player like Dan Hamhuis to rival Western Conference contenders, particularly under all the mitigating circumstances.  That is literally a non-starter.  You set the value and if it’s met, you make a move – if not, you don’t bend over to the whims of a buyer’s market.  “Reading” the market is only relevant if you are dead set on moving the player in the first place– that was not and should not have been the case.

 

 

 

Given that context, my belief is that the Canucks approached the trade deadline with a line drawn – if they were able to command a sizeable return in the form they were looking for they’d entertain moving Dan Hamhuis to one of the franchise’s he waived for – Chicago or Dallas.

 

However, a few things underline the challenge there.

 

1)      Best case scenario, Dan would be rented for a solid return and return to Vancouver, ala Antoine Vermette the year before.  However, the fact Hamhuis wanted to stay and return was no secret and moreover, despite strong play since returning from injury, it remained the fact that he was recovering from a serious injury.  Both those things obviously mitigate Hamhuis’ value relative to other options – the potential buyers would have to be willing to spend for a pure rental.  Other options did not necessarily carry those conditions.

 

2)      The market was limited to Western contenders – both of whom had the assets to make a move, but weren’t necessarily offering returns in the form the Canucks were looking for.  Volume of middling assets weren’t necessarily worth moving on imo – a point I’ll return to.

 

 

 

The Chicago Blackhawks:

 

Reported stories regarding the Hawks – Canucks allegedly didn’t move fast enough, Hamhuis “waffled” – imo the ignorant trolling and speculation of media cling-ons with a history of premature ‘reports’, weak, unsubstantiated ‘sources’ and chronic inaccuracy - that didn’t and still don’t really know what actually transpired.  There is no point buying into one story or another – looking at the underlying context imo is far more worthwhile.

 

Fact: Chicago elected to spend on Andrew Ladd.  The other fact that gets lost in the noise – they still had the opportunity to acquire Hamhuis afterwards, but simply did not make it happen.  Was there an either/or Andrew Ladd deadline?  Imo, if the Hawks weren’t prepared to move prospects like Pokka, Hartman or comparable value in picks, a deal didn’t necessarily make sense for Vancouver.  The narrative is that the Hawks wanted Hamhuis, were disappointed, frustrated – whatever (quite frankly, who cares?) – they could have made it happen regardless of the Ladd deal, if they were willing to pay the price, but they didn’t.   There is no ‘fault’ involved on Vancouver’s part.  That is merely slanted drama.

 

The Dallas Stars:

 

The Stars had the option of a defenseman that might return and a player that would likely be a  pure rental.  Moreover, the Calgary Flames were willing to take a return composed of Jokipakka, Pollock and a late 2^nd.   Dan Hamhuis is the better asset – but was he the better deal for Dallas?  Aside from the likelihood he would not return to Dallas, what was the form of the deal the Canucks were wanting?  This is no small detail – imo the Canucks may have expected comparable overall value – but in all likelihood in the form of a RHD/pmd /Julius Honka as opposed to three middling assets.  Mere speculation on my part, but the organizational needs of Vancouver are not the same as the Calgary Flames.  Jokipakka is not necessarily the (type of) blueliner this franchise is needing/looking for in a return and despite decent cumulative asset value, the return the Flames got does not necessarily make sense for Vancouver.  Hamhuis in my opinion is the better player – an opinion shared by most – but under the circumstances, his trade value slips back to comparable to Russell – and the form that the expected returns is important.

 

Dallas elected to move on the Russell deal, and reportedly circled back with a late lowball.  Again, refusing a lowball under the circumstances is a no-brainer.  If it comes down to accepting an exceedingly compromising return, and potentially burning your valuable bridge with Dan Hamhuis, imo that is an easy decision to make.

 

The bottom line – the best case scenario was a possible, but difficult and somewhat unlikely one – that certainly could not be banked up (despite lofty expectations of so many) – getting worthwhile value and bringing the player back.  I hoped that could be the case – but I did not expect it would.  It did not turn out – and imo – is no great loss – certainly nowhere near relative to the level of upset and outrage. 

 

The fact remains that both sides have the option or re-signing – and in the end, that is far greater value than gifting Dan Hamhuis to a contender for a lowball.   You work on it, survey the market, see what is possible, but in the end, I am glad this management group did not make lowball concessions to either of these franchises.   That would have been unacceptable, desperate, and an insult to Dan Hamhuis.   If these franchises weren’t prepared to pay the price in a form that made sense, so be it. 

 

Some of the commentary of ‘analysts’ was downright assinine – guys like former CBJ GM and Sportsnet talking head Doug MacLean suggesting that he’d simply have told Hamhuis that he’s not coming back and taken anything he could get in return.  It’s no surprise that he’s no longer employed as an NHL manager and peer to the likes of PJ Stock and Glen Healy.  One of the best pending UFA defensemen who is willing to return at a non-frenzy UFA hometown price - and some folks wonder why he wasn’t unloaded for cap dump value.  This is why I’ve titled this thread “trade deadline for Dummies” – because the vocal majority have offered literally nothing of analytical value.  

 

All things considered, I’m glad Dan Hamhuis remains a Canuck at this point – and hope that remains the case moving forward.  He represents a great deal of value to this franchise – and has stated that he appreciates the way management handled this situation, and the context of the deadline.  Hamhuis has been worth his cap hit every single day he's been a Vancouver Canuck.   In all likelihood he returns - and makes this team far better than any lowball return - as well as representing potential asset value they might trade in the future, depending on how the team progresses.

 

 

 

Benning and the Canucks handled it as it should have been handled.

 

 

 

Radim Vrbata

 

Vrbata reportedly left money on the table to come to Vancouver and play with the Sedins.  No assets cost – and literally, outstanding production in his first season here – his signing was a literal no brainer. 

 

For tactical reasons that have been discussed at length on these boards, Vrbata did not make an ideal 5on5 winger on the Sedin line however, despite some aspects of his game that fit well.  A right handed shot, a pitch and catch possession player, a solid defensive forward that had spent his share of time on Phoenix’s shutdown line, Vrbata has a lot of solid attributes to complement the Sedins, however, one thing he is not is a hard areas player that gets in aggressively on the forecheck, creating space for his linemates.  As Henrik noted, those tasks are left to the Sedins with Vrbata on their wing – and for that key reason, alternative wingers were better options despite Vrbata’s strengths.  Vrbata remained an ideal first unit powerplay fixture, but otherwise was utilized – reasonably so – on the second line with young forwards Horvat and Baertschi, who struggled early, but gained some momentum as the season progressed.  The stated reason for that change was scoring “balance”, but it was not that simple – and focusing on outlining tactical issues/challenges is generally not a solid way to message decisions like that.

 

Vrbata struggled to finish this year – uncharacteristically.  A player that scored 30 goals the previous season, and touted as one of if not the best UFA signing of the previous summer, had a season defined by struggle and frustration.  In addition, he and Horvat, in the absence of Sutter, were, needless to say, not seeing the type of situational minutes you’d consider ideal to the kind of production Vrbata is capable of.  

 

But here is the kicker.  Vrbata not only struggled this year – but he was injured/questionable heading into the trade deadline.   It was definitely not a trade deadline where many forwards were moved for decent returns– and the examples are obvious.

 

Brandon Pirri, returned a 6^th round pick.  33 goals in his last 111 games - not a UFA, but an RFA whose rights are now retained by Anaheim..  The market for him was a 6^th round pick.  Surprising to say the least that Dale Tallon settled for that return instead of simply retaining his rights, but he took the 6th.  

 

P.A Parenteau had 32 points, 16 goals at 1.5 million for the Leafs *(prorated to about $400 k in cap at the deadline) – and the fire sale Leafs couldn't get anything for him.  I thought he'd have gotten moved for a late pick tbh, but evidently there were no buyers.

 

That was the reality of the trade deadline market.  There is no fault on behalf of Jim Benning -  people can hindsight and pretend that the Vrbata signing wasn’t worthwhile, or that Benning exercises poor judgement in his player evaluations – that imo is utter nonsense.  It is unfortunate/disappointing that the team couldn’t gain an asset, but at the same time, there was no asset loss/spent in the first place.  People can make a ‘loss’ of it if they elect that perspective, but really, the sum of the ‘loss’ at this deadline, would still remain a longshot mid to late pick at best.  Not worth the noise.

 

The bottom line:  there was no decision for Benning to make here – Vrbata’s play, his health, and the market defined him as unmovable at the deadline.  I appreciate the fact he elected to come here in the first place.

 

 

 

The remainder of the Canuck assets that were not moved – I’m not going to spend much time on.  Players whose season was marked by injuries – Prust, Higgins – that is the reality of the NHL – and this deadline was not exactly one where a great deal of player movement took place.  Higgins is a player I am happy remains in the system – and could still be an important asset, or moved for a return next season should he regain the form that has made him a literal steal and top shelf cap value in his years here.  Regardless of how that turns out, Chris Higgins, like Dan Hamhuis, owes this franchise literally nothing.  Weber, like Vrbata – his production tailed off – no one expected him to have value at the deadline.  Bartkowski  - I like the signing – he was a good, serviceable defenseman at a reasonable cap value.  I did not expect to see Bartkowski moved at the deadline.  Cracknell was a nice signing who played well, exceeded expectations – did not expect him to be dealt, but have to question a bottom-feeder like Edmonton claiming him down the stretch when they’re out of the playoffs and might be opting to get their youth some minutes and experience.  The positive for Cracknell is that he’ll earn an NHL paycheque if Edmonton indeed keeps him on their roster.

 

 

 

Markus Granlund

 

An early deadline move I like.  Hunter Shinkaruk is a player I also like – but I believe that Granlund has as much, if not more upside, with a game that translates better at the NHL level, and is more versatile.  Where Shinkaruk might have played here is a greater question mark, with Daniel Sedin and Baertschi owning the top six LW spots.  I like the decision the Canucks made to opt for the more proven asset and I think Granlund will be a solid fit with some of the young Canucks he’ll be playing with.  Excited to see his progression here – he has looked good early in a Canucks uniform.   An excellent decision as far as I’m concerned, despite it’s unpopularity.

 

Philip Larsen

 

A relative sleeper move amongst all the noise of the deadline – his speed, offensive instincts and upside are a relative no brainer at the price of a 5^th round pick.  The risk/benefit potential of acquiring his rights is a move that had to be made – the fact he did not turn out in Deadmonton and was not interested in returning there - are not deterrents - in the least.   Another player whose progression will be fun to watch - he is precisely the type of player the team is looking to add to the mix of their blueline.

 

 

 

A best case scenario that didn’t work out, a ‘lost’ mid to late pick, a good hockey trade of  young forwards, and the acquisition of a defenseman, for a 5^th round pick, that has the potential to be every bit as much a gain as the perceived pick ‘loss’ of this deadline.

 

Benning’s trade deadline performance - not really the failure it’s being portrayed to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And here endeth the sermon. Well said Old News.

[Bob Long]

17 minutes ago, oldnews said:

We've heard all the noise - the drama, baiting, speculating, trolling, protesting, the expectations, disappointment, calling for management’s heads….the usual reactions.  Fun stuff no doubt - and certainly precipitated by the trolls at TSN, the Province, SN - we know who they are – they had their airtime.

 

Couldn't agree more. I've been saying this (and getting dumped on) for saying that when you frame it like this, we did fine. The question in my mind is: Are we a better team after the trade with Dallas? For me its a resounding no, for all the reasons about Hamhuis you listed, and the fact that Pedan is better than Jokipakka. That trade would not have improved our team. All of the arguments seem to be based on the unknown mystery 3rd round pick, dark horse for sure star we missed out on. Hamhuis was treated with a ton of respect by Benning, and we'll get a discount on a legit top 4 D because of it. 

[desiboynux4lifee*******]

Canucks' break down for dummies, writes over a page lol. I thought it was for dummies! 

 

look dude, this remains on Benning because he had a job to do an he failed miserably. He should have got his players to waive there NTCs earlier, and Linden should have played counseller and sold the fact that its not a big deal to leave your team and go play with Crosby for 4 months. The fact that they did it 4 days before TDL gave Hamhuis and his family less time to think of the positives. Should happened way earlier, why didn't it?   

[250Integra]

TLDR?

 

Canucks failed at the trade deadline.

[oldnews]

1 minute ago, desiboynux4lifee******* said:

Canucks' break down for dummies, writes over a page lol. I thought it was for dummies! 

you're welcome

[TheOgRook]

14 minutes ago, oldnews said:

We've heard all the noise - the drama, baiting, speculating, trolling, protesting, the expectations, disappointment, calling for management’s heads….the usual reactions.  Fun stuff no doubt - and certainly precipitated by the trolls at TSN, the Province, SN - we know who they are – they had their airtime.

 

But now that the dust has settled:  a look at the underlying reality without the slant and emotion of high and low expectations.

 

 

 

An assessment of the Canucks trade deadline decision-making.  

 

 

Most of you probably won't like it - it won't confirm the bulk of what was said and what the herd heard.  

 

 

 

Dan Hamhuis

 

Briefly – Dan Hamhuis has been an elite two way defenseman that came here at no assets cost and helped propel this franchise to a contender.    Canadian Olympian.   Averaged 25-30 pts a season in 6 years here,  playing some of the harder minutes on the Canucks blueline, he has been a cumulative +84 (a statistic that doesn’t mean much when taken out of context, but in the context of Hamhuis’ play, quite impressive).   Dan’s underlying/possession numbers have been simply elite in his time here.  His first five seasons here – every year  he was a player getting less than 50% offensive zone starts, facing very strong quality of competition, always a positive corsi and usually, exceptionally strong  – quite simply, outstanding underlying numbers.

 

Now here’s the dig.  That was then, right?  That’s great and all, but what about now, what about the future?

 

This season was slightly different in a couple senses.  Hamhuis’ minutes were not quite as hard as they’ve been through the duration of his time here.  Partnered primarily with Bartkowski and Weber, his ozone starts were upwards of 50% for the first time in Vancouver – however, Dan’s corsi, correspondingly, was also the best on the Vancouver blueline – the only positive corsi on in fact, and better than either of his partners’.

 

If that’s the case – if Hamhuis is still a solid top 4 NHL defenseman, why didn’t they get get something for him?   Why not get whatever you can, after all, this franchise has had a difficult, injury-riddled season, and is in the process of integrating their youth into the lineup.  The question everyone is asking - why didn’t they capitalize on the opportunity to add to the pick and prospect pool?

 

 

 

The context:

 

1)      Hamhuis  is recovering from a serious injury.

 

2)      His family is expecting a child in the midst of what would be a playoff run had he left to a playoff team

 

3)      Hamhuis wants to stay in Vancouver and want to return to Vancouver.

 

4)      Hamhuis  was willing to waive for the right circumstance, but certainly did not appear thrilled with the prospect of leaving.  He was making a concession for the franchise – in the midst of recovery and what could easily be conceived as more important underlying family matters.

 

5)      Hamhuis would be taking a risk in leaving – a grueling, Western Conference playoff run would be challenging under the circumstances of recovery, and moreover, could pose a risk, if injured, to his subsequent contract.  If he returns to this franchise, a happy, healthy, recovered and rested Dan Hamhuis is a key asset to this franchise next season.

 

6)      A lot is made of the Canucks alleged lack of blueline prospects – if that were in fact true, there is a dual implication – one the one hand the need to add, but on the other, it would only serve to underline the importance of him returning to bridge this franchise’s blueline moving forward.

 

7)      Hamhuis will be one of, if not the best free agent defenseman on the market this summer.

 

8)      Hamhuis is not leveraging his negotiating position with this franchise – he has made it exceedingly clear that he wants and prefers to stay and return as a Vancouver Canuck.

 

9)      Hamhuis remains a top 4 blueliner – and unless that value were met, there is no point in moving him.  “Just taking anything” is nonsense that has been repeated endlessly, but only a fool makes a concession like that to, particularly to asset rich franchises.  You simply do not gift a player like Dan Hamhuis to rival Western Conference contenders, particularly under all the mitigating circumstances.  That is literally a non-starter.  You set the value and if it’s met, you make a move – if not, you don’t bend over to the whims of a buyer’s market.  “Reading” the market is only relevant if you are dead set on moving the player in the first place– that was not and should not have been the case.

 

 

 

Given that context, my belief is that the Canucks approached the trade deadline with a line drawn – if they were able to command a sizeable return in the form they were looking for they’d entertain moving Dan Hamhuis to one of the franchise’s he waived for – Chicago or Dallas.

 

However, a few things underline the challenge there.

 

1)      Best case scenario, Dan would be rented for a solid return and return to Vancouver, ala Antoine Vermette the year before.  However, the fact Hamhuis wanted to stay and return was no secret and moreover, despite strong play since returning from injury, it remained the fact that he was recovering from a serious injury.  Both those things obviously mitigate Hamhuis’ value relative to other options – the potential buyers would have to be willing to spend for a pure rental.  Other options did not necessarily carry those conditions.

 

2)      The market was limited to Western contenders – both of whom had the assets to make a move, but weren’t necessarily offering returns in the form the Canucks were looking for.  Volume of middling assets weren’t necessarily worth moving on imo – a point I’ll return to.

 

 

 

The Chicago Blackhawks:

 

Reported stories regarding the Hawks – Canucks allegedly didn’t move fast enough, Hamhuis “waffled” – imo the ignorant trolling and speculation of media cling-ons with a history of premature ‘reports’, weak, unsubstantiated ‘sources’ and chronic inaccuracy - that didn’t and still don’t really know what actually transpired.  There is no point buying into one story or another – looking at the underlying context imo is far more worthwhile.

 

 

Fact: Chicago elected to spend on Andrew Ladd.  The other fact that gets lost in the noise – they still had the opportunity to acquire Hamhuis afterwards, but simply did not make it happen.  Was there an either/or Andrew Ladd deadline?  Imo, if the Hawks weren’t prepared to move prospects like Pokka, Hartman or comparable value in picks, a deal didn’t necessarily make sense for Vancouver.  The narrative is that the Hawks wanted Hamhuis, were disappointed, frustrated – whatever (quite frankly, who cares?) – they could have made it happen regardless of the Ladd deal, if they were willing to pay the price, but they didn’t.   There is no ‘fault’ involved on Vancouver’s part.  That is merely slanted drama.

 

 

The Dallas Stars:

 

The Stars had the option of a defenseman that might return and a player that would likely be a  pure rental.  Moreover, the Calgary Flames were willing to take a return composed of Jokipakka, Pollock and a late 2^nd.   Dan Hamhuis is the better asset – but was he the better deal for Dallas?  Aside from the likelihood he would not return to Dallas, what was the form of the deal the Canucks were wanting?  This is no small detail – imo the Canucks may have expected comparable overall value – but in all likelihood in the form of a RHD/pmd /Julius Honka as opposed to three middling assets.  Mere speculation on my part, but the organizational needs of Vancouver are not the same as the Calgary Flames.  Jokipakka is not necessarily the (type of) blueliner this franchise is needing/looking for in a return and despite decent cumulative asset value, the return the Flames got does not necessarily make sense for Vancouver.  Hamhuis in my opinion is the better player – an opinion shared by most – but under the circumstances, his trade value slips back to comparable to Russell – and the form that the expected returns is important.

 

 

Dallas elected to move on the Russell deal, and reportedly circled back with a late lowball.  Again, refusing a lowball under the circumstances is a no-brainer.  If it comes down to accepting an exceedingly compromising return, and potentially burning your valuable bridge with Dan Hamhuis, imo that is an easy decision to make.

 

 

The bottom line – the best case scenario was a possible, but difficult and somewhat unlikely one – that certainly could not be banked up (despite lofty expectations of so many) – getting worthwhile value and bringing the player back.  I hoped that could be the case – but I did not expect it would.  It did not turn out – and imo – is no great loss – certainly nowhere near relative to the level of upset and outrage. 

 

 

The fact remains that both sides have the option or re-signing – and in the end, that is far greater value than gifting Dan Hamhuis to a contender for a lowball.   You work on it, survey the market, see what is possible, but in the end, I am glad this management group did not make lowball concessions to either of these franchises.   That would have been unacceptable, desperate, and an insult to Dan Hamhuis.   If these franchises weren’t prepared to pay the price in a form that made sense, so be it. 

 

 

Some of the commentary of ‘analysts’ was downright assinine – guys like former CBJ GM and Sportsnet talking head Doug MacLean suggesting that he’d simply have told Hamhuis that he’s not coming back and taken anything he could get in return.  It’s no surprise that he’s no longer employed as an NHL manager and peer to the likes of PJ Stock and Glen Healy.  One of the best pending UFA defensemen who is willing to return at a non-frenzy UFA hometown price - and some folks wonder why he wasn’t unloaded for cap dump value.  This is why I’ve titled this thread “trade deadline for Dummies” – because the vocal majority have offered literally nothing of analytical value.  

 

 

All things considered, I’m glad Dan Hamhuis remains a Canuck at this point – and hope that remains the case moving forward.  He represents a great deal of value to this franchise – and has stated that he appreciates the way management handled this situation, and the context of the deadline.  Hamhuis has been worth his cap hit every single day he's been a Vancouver Canuck.   In all likelihood he returns - and makes this team far better than any lowball return - as well as representing potential asset value they might trade in the future, depending on how the team progresses.

 

 

 

Benning and the Canucks handled it as it should have been handled.

 

 

 

Radim Vrbata

 

Vrbata reportedly left money on the table to come to Vancouver and play with the Sedins.  No assets cost – and literally, outstanding production in his first season here – his signing was a literal no brainer. 

 

 

For tactical reasons that have been discussed at length on these boards, Vrbata did not make an ideal 5on5 winger on the Sedin line however, despite some aspects of his game that fit well.  A right handed shot, a pitch and catch possession player, a solid defensive forward that had spent his share of time on Phoenix’s shutdown line, Vrbata has a lot of solid attributes to complement the Sedins, however, one thing he is not is a hard areas player that gets in aggressively on the forecheck, creating space for his linemates.  As Henrik noted, those tasks are left to the Sedins with Vrbata on their wing – and for that key reason, alternative wingers were better options despite Vrbata’s strengths.  Vrbata remained an ideal first unit powerplay fixture, but otherwise was utilized – reasonably so – on the second line with young forwards Horvat and Baertschi, who struggled early, but gained some momentum as the season progressed.  The stated reason for that change was scoring “balance”, but it was not that simple – and focusing on outlining tactical issues/challenges is generally not a solid way to message decisions like that.

 

 

Vrbata struggled to finish this year – uncharacteristically.  A player that scored 30 goals the previous season, and touted as one of if not the best UFA signing of the previous summer, had a season defined by struggle and frustration.  In addition, he and Horvat, in the absence of Sutter, were, needless to say, not seeing the type of situational minutes you’d consider ideal to the kind of production Vrbata is capable of.  

 

 

But here is the kicker.  Vrbata not only struggled this year – but he was injured/questionable heading into the trade deadline.   It was definitely not a trade deadline where many forwards were moved for decent returns– and the examples are obvious.

 

 

Brandon Pirri, returned a 6^th round pick.  33 goals in his last 111 games - not a UFA, but an RFA whose rights are now retained by Anaheim..  The market for him was a 6^th round pick.  Surprising to say the least that Dale Tallon settled for that return instead of simply retaining his rights, but he took the 6th.  

 

 

P.A Parenteau had 32 points, 16 goals at 1.5 million for the Leafs *(prorated to about $400 k in cap at the deadline) – and the fire sale Leafs couldn't get anything for him.  I thought he'd have gotten moved for a late pick tbh, but evidently there were no buyers.

 

 

That was the reality of the trade deadline market.  There is no fault on behalf of Jim Benning -  people can hindsight and pretend that the Vrbata signing wasn’t worthwhile, or that Benning exercises poor judgement in his player evaluations – that imo is utter nonsense.  It is unfortunate/disappointing that the team couldn’t gain an asset, but at the same time, there was no asset loss/spent in the first place.  People can make a ‘loss’ of it if they elect that perspective, but really, the sum of the ‘loss’ at this deadline, would still remain a longshot mid to late pick at best.  Not worth the noise.

 

 

The bottom line:  there was no decision for Benning to make here – Vrbata’s play, his health, and the market defined him as unmovable at the deadline.  I appreciate the fact he elected to come here in the first place.

 

 

 

 

The remainder of the Canuck assets that were not moved – I’m not going to spend much time on.  Players whose season was marked by injuries – Prust, Higgins – that is the reality of the NHL – and this deadline was not exactly one where a great deal of player movement took place.  Higgins is a player I am happy remains in the system – and could still be an important asset, or moved for a return next season should he regain the form that has made him a literal steal and top shelf cap value in his years here.  Regardless of how that turns out, Chris Higgins, like Dan Hamhuis, owes this franchise literally nothing.  Weber, like Vrbata – his production tailed off – no one expected him to have value at the deadline.  Bartkowski  - I like the signing – he was a good, serviceable defenseman at a reasonable cap value.  I did not expect to see Bartkowski moved at the deadline.  Cracknell was a nice signing who played well, exceeded expectations – did not expect him to be dealt, but have to question a bottom-feeder like Edmonton claiming him down the stretch when they’re out of the playoffs and might be opting to get their youth some minutes and experience.  The positive for Cracknell is that he’ll earn an NHL paycheque if Edmonton indeed keeps him on their roster.

 

 

 

Markus Granlund

 

An early deadline move I like.  Hunter Shinkaruk is a player I also like – but I believe that Granlund has as much, if not more upside, with a game that translates better at the NHL level, and is more versatile.  Where Shinkaruk might have played here is a greater question mark, with Daniel Sedin and Baertschi owning the top six LW spots.  I like the decision the Canucks made to opt for the more proven asset and I think Granlund will be a solid fit with some of the young Canucks he’ll be playing with.  Excited to see his progression here – he has looked good early in a Canucks uniform.   An excellent decision as far as I’m concerned, despite it’s unpopularity.

 

Philip Larsen

 

A relative sleeper move amongst all the noise of the deadline – his speed, offensive instincts and upside are a relative no brainer at the price of a 5^th round pick.  The risk/benefit potential of acquiring his rights is a move that had to be made – the fact he did not turn out in Deadmonton and was not interested in returning there - are not deterrents - in the least.   Another player whose progression will be fun to watch - he is precisely the type of player the team is looking to add to the mix of their blueline.

 

 

 

A best case scenario that didn’t work out, a ‘lost’ mid to late pick, a good hockey trade of  young forwards, and the acquisition of a defenseman, for a 5^th round pick, that has the potential to be every bit as much a gain as the perceived pick ‘loss’ of this deadline.

 

Benning’s trade deadline performance - not really the failure it’s being portrayed to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're a Beautician Old News.  I literally couldn't have broken that down any better myself   +1

[Patrick Jane]

[swizzey]

OP...

Thank you for writing this clear concise trade deadline summary. I thought it was very beneficial and puts a nice bow on the whole TDL. 

Appreciate the thorough effort

[oldnews]

2 minutes ago, Patrick Jane said:

voices from a van down by the river.

[Heated Blue]

I agree OP

 

While I am disappointed no moves happened at the deadline I cant fault the reasoning behind it.

 

Good job on the summary

[Kakanucks]

23 minutes ago, oldnews said:

We've heard all the noise - the drama, baiting, speculating, trolling, protesting, the expectations, disappointment, calling for management’s heads….the usual reactions.  Fun stuff no doubt - and certainly precipitated by the trolls at TSN, the Province, SN - we know who they are – they had their airtime.

 

But now that the dust has settled:  a look at the underlying reality without the slant and emotion of high and low expectations.

 

An assessment of the Canucks trade deadline decision-making.  

 

Most of you probably won't like it - it won't confirm the bulk of what was said and what the herd heard.  

 

..........

 

Benning’s trade deadline performance - not really the failure it’s being portrayed to be.

Thank you so much for this Oldnews! Only reason I still come here every day is because of posters like you, stawns, etc.

 

I very much agree with al that was said.

Especially on the point about "loss asset", you cannot lose something that you never had to begin with.

You don't give Hamhuis away for scraps and pieces to help other teams win a cup.

As for Vrbata, we got him for free, so even if he walks, we didn't "lose" anything. Only thing we lost was 3 years of paycheques, which we don't write.

 

+1. I ran out for the day, but I will definitely come back to +1 you.

[2inthecup]

Good essay. I tend to be on this side as well but one thing I think you flew past.

 

 Looking at the situation I feel JB was a victor of some inexperience on Monday. My person feeling is he took too long o making decisions (I feel we could have made a decision on Hamhuis days before), spent too long in a slow negotiation and waiting until Monday to make a deal.

 

This deadline has shown for the most part waiting until the last day puts more pressure on the seller and arguablymore value was given in the days leading up. 

 

I think JB will learn from this and be bethere in the future.  I've liked most of the trades he's made and feel he will do more with his draft picks than Toronto will with twice as many. 

 

 

[CeeBee51]

If I could give you more

38 minutes ago, oldnews said:

We've heard all the noise - the drama, baiting, speculating, trolling, protesting, the expectations, disappointment, calling for management’s heads….the usual reactions.  Fun stuff no doubt - and certainly precipitated by the trolls at TSN, the Province, SN - we know who they are – they had their airtime.

 

But now that the dust has settled:  a look at the underlying reality without the slant and emotion of high and low expectations.

 

 

 

An assessment of the Canucks trade deadline decision-making.  

 

 

Most of you probably won't like it - it won't confirm the bulk of what was said and what the herd heard.  

 

 

 

Dan Hamhuis

 

Briefly – Dan Hamhuis has been an elite two way defenseman that came here at no assets cost and helped propel this franchise to a contender.    Canadian Olympian.   Averaged 25-30 pts a season in 6 years here,  playing some of the harder minutes on the Canucks blueline, he has been a cumulative +84 (a statistic that doesn’t mean much when taken out of context, but in the context of Hamhuis’ play, quite impressive).   Dan’s underlying/possession numbers have been simply elite in his time here.  His first five seasons here – every year  he was a player getting less than 50% offensive zone starts, facing very strong quality of competition, always a positive corsi and usually, exceptionally strong  – quite simply, outstanding underlying numbers.

 

Now here’s the dig.  That was then, right?  That’s great and all, but what about now, what about the future?

 

This season was slightly different in a couple senses.  Hamhuis’ minutes were not quite as hard as they’ve been through the duration of his time here.  Partnered primarily with Bartkowski and Weber, his ozone starts were upwards of 50% for the first time in Vancouver – however, Dan’s corsi, correspondingly, was also the best on the Vancouver blueline – the only positive corsi on in fact, and better than either of his partners’.

 

If that’s the case – if Hamhuis is still a solid top 4 NHL defenseman, why didn’t they get get something for him?   Why not get whatever you can, after all, this franchise has had a difficult, injury-riddled season, and is in the process of integrating their youth into the lineup.  The question everyone is asking - why didn’t they capitalize on the opportunity to add to the pick and prospect pool?

 

 

 

The context:

 

1)      Hamhuis  is recovering from a serious injury.

 

2)      His family is expecting a child in the midst of what would be a playoff run had he left to a playoff team

 

3)      Hamhuis wants to stay in Vancouver and want to return to Vancouver.

 

4)      Hamhuis  was willing to waive for the right circumstance, but certainly did not appear thrilled with the prospect of leaving.  He was making a concession for the franchise – in the midst of recovery and what could easily be conceived as more important underlying family matters.

 

5)      Hamhuis would be taking a risk in leaving – a grueling, Western Conference playoff run would be challenging under the circumstances of recovery, and moreover, could pose a risk, if injured, to his subsequent contract.  If he returns to this franchise, a happy, healthy, recovered and rested Dan Hamhuis is a key asset to this franchise next season.

 

6)      A lot is made of the Canucks alleged lack of blueline prospects – if that were in fact true, there is a dual implication – one the one hand the need to add, but on the other, it would only serve to underline the importance of him returning to bridge this franchise’s blueline moving forward.

 

7)      Hamhuis will be one of, if not the best free agent defenseman on the market this summer.

 

8)      Hamhuis is not leveraging his negotiating position with this franchise – he has made it exceedingly clear that he wants and prefers to stay and return as a Vancouver Canuck.

 

9)      Hamhuis remains a top 4 blueliner – and unless that value were met, there is no point in moving him.  “Just taking anything” is nonsense that has been repeated endlessly, but only a fool makes a concession like that to, particularly to asset rich franchises.  You simply do not gift a player like Dan Hamhuis to rival Western Conference contenders, particularly under all the mitigating circumstances.  That is literally a non-starter.  You set the value and if it’s met, you make a move – if not, you don’t bend over to the whims of a buyer’s market.  “Reading” the market is only relevant if you are dead set on moving the player in the first place– that was not and should not have been the case.

 

 

 

Given that context, my belief is that the Canucks approached the trade deadline with a line drawn – if they were able to command a sizeable return in the form they were looking for they’d entertain moving Dan Hamhuis to one of the franchise’s he waived for – Chicago or Dallas.

 

However, a few things underline the challenge there.

 

1)      Best case scenario, Dan would be rented for a solid return and return to Vancouver, ala Antoine Vermette the year before.  However, the fact Hamhuis wanted to stay and return was no secret and moreover, despite strong play since returning from injury, it remained the fact that he was recovering from a serious injury.  Both those things obviously mitigate Hamhuis’ value relative to other options – the potential buyers would have to be willing to spend for a pure rental.  Other options did not necessarily carry those conditions.

 

2)      The market was limited to Western contenders – both of whom had the assets to make a move, but weren’t necessarily offering returns in the form the Canucks were looking for.  Volume of middling assets weren’t necessarily worth moving on imo – a point I’ll return to.

 

 

 

The Chicago Blackhawks:

 

Reported stories regarding the Hawks – Canucks allegedly didn’t move fast enough, Hamhuis “waffled” – imo the ignorant trolling and speculation of media cling-ons with a history of premature ‘reports’, weak, unsubstantiated ‘sources’ and chronic inaccuracy - that didn’t and still don’t really know what actually transpired.  There is no point buying into one story or another – looking at the underlying context imo is far more worthwhile.

 

 

Fact: Chicago elected to spend on Andrew Ladd.  The other fact that gets lost in the noise – they still had the opportunity to acquire Hamhuis afterwards, but simply did not make it happen.  Was there an either/or Andrew Ladd deadline?  Imo, if the Hawks weren’t prepared to move prospects like Pokka, Hartman or comparable value in picks, a deal didn’t necessarily make sense for Vancouver.  The narrative is that the Hawks wanted Hamhuis, were disappointed, frustrated – whatever (quite frankly, who cares?) – they could have made it happen regardless of the Ladd deal, if they were willing to pay the price, but they didn’t.   There is no ‘fault’ involved on Vancouver’s part.  That is merely slanted drama.

 

 

The Dallas Stars:

 

The Stars had the option of a defenseman that might return and a player that would likely be a  pure rental.  Moreover, the Calgary Flames were willing to take a return composed of Jokipakka, Pollock and a late 2^nd.   Dan Hamhuis is the better asset – but was he the better deal for Dallas?  Aside from the likelihood he would not return to Dallas, what was the form of the deal the Canucks were wanting?  This is no small detail – imo the Canucks may have expected comparable overall value – but in all likelihood in the form of a RHD/pmd /Julius Honka as opposed to three middling assets.  Mere speculation on my part, but the organizational needs of Vancouver are not the same as the Calgary Flames.  Jokipakka is not necessarily the (type of) blueliner this franchise is needing/looking for in a return and despite decent cumulative asset value, the return the Flames got does not necessarily make sense for Vancouver.  Hamhuis in my opinion is the better player – an opinion shared by most – but under the circumstances, his trade value slips back to comparable to Russell – and the form that the expected returns is important.

 

 

Dallas elected to move on the Russell deal, and reportedly circled back with a late lowball.  Again, refusing a lowball under the circumstances is a no-brainer.  If it comes down to accepting an exceedingly compromising return, and potentially burning your valuable bridge with Dan Hamhuis, imo that is an easy decision to make.

 

 

The bottom line – the best case scenario was a possible, but difficult and somewhat unlikely one – that certainly could not be banked up (despite lofty expectations of so many) – getting worthwhile value and bringing the player back.  I hoped that could be the case – but I did not expect it would.  It did not turn out – and imo – is no great loss – certainly nowhere near relative to the level of upset and outrage. 

 

 

The fact remains that both sides have the option or re-signing – and in the end, that is far greater value than gifting Dan Hamhuis to a contender for a lowball.   You work on it, survey the market, see what is possible, but in the end, I am glad this management group did not make lowball concessions to either of these franchises.   That would have been unacceptable, desperate, and an insult to Dan Hamhuis.   If these franchises weren’t prepared to pay the price in a form that made sense, so be it. 

 

 

Some of the commentary of ‘analysts’ was downright assinine – guys like former CBJ GM and Sportsnet talking head Doug MacLean suggesting that he’d simply have told Hamhuis that he’s not coming back and taken anything he could get in return.  It’s no surprise that he’s no longer employed as an NHL manager and peer to the likes of PJ Stock and Glen Healy.  One of the best pending UFA defensemen who is willing to return at a non-frenzy UFA hometown price - and some folks wonder why he wasn’t unloaded for cap dump value.  This is why I’ve titled this thread “trade deadline for Dummies” – because the vocal majority have offered literally nothing of analytical value.  

 

 

All things considered, I’m glad Dan Hamhuis remains a Canuck at this point – and hope that remains the case moving forward.  He represents a great deal of value to this franchise – and has stated that he appreciates the way management handled this situation, and the context of the deadline.  Hamhuis has been worth his cap hit every single day he's been a Vancouver Canuck.   In all likelihood he returns - and makes this team far better than any lowball return - as well as representing potential asset value they might trade in the future, depending on how the team progresses.

 

 

 

Benning and the Canucks handled it as it should have been handled.

 

 

 

Radim Vrbata

 

Vrbata reportedly left money on the table to come to Vancouver and play with the Sedins.  No assets cost – and literally, outstanding production in his first season here – his signing was a literal no brainer. 

 

 

For tactical reasons that have been discussed at length on these boards, Vrbata did not make an ideal 5on5 winger on the Sedin line however, despite some aspects of his game that fit well.  A right handed shot, a pitch and catch possession player, a solid defensive forward that had spent his share of time on Phoenix’s shutdown line, Vrbata has a lot of solid attributes to complement the Sedins, however, one thing he is not is a hard areas player that gets in aggressively on the forecheck, creating space for his linemates.  As Henrik noted, those tasks are left to the Sedins with Vrbata on their wing – and for that key reason, alternative wingers were better options despite Vrbata’s strengths.  Vrbata remained an ideal first unit powerplay fixture, but otherwise was utilized – reasonably so – on the second line with young forwards Horvat and Baertschi, who struggled early, but gained some momentum as the season progressed.  The stated reason for that change was scoring “balance”, but it was not that simple – and focusing on outlining tactical issues/challenges is generally not a solid way to message decisions like that.

 

 

Vrbata struggled to finish this year – uncharacteristically.  A player that scored 30 goals the previous season, and touted as one of if not the best UFA signing of the previous summer, had a season defined by struggle and frustration.  In addition, he and Horvat, in the absence of Sutter, were, needless to say, not seeing the type of situational minutes you’d consider ideal to the kind of production Vrbata is capable of.  

 

 

But here is the kicker.  Vrbata not only struggled this year – but he was injured/questionable heading into the trade deadline.   It was definitely not a trade deadline where many forwards were moved for decent returns– and the examples are obvious.

 

 

Brandon Pirri, returned a 6^th round pick.  33 goals in his last 111 games - not a UFA, but an RFA whose rights are now retained by Anaheim..  The market for him was a 6^th round pick.  Surprising to say the least that Dale Tallon settled for that return instead of simply retaining his rights, but he took the 6th.  

 

 

P.A Parenteau had 32 points, 16 goals at 1.5 million for the Leafs *(prorated to about $400 k in cap at the deadline) – and the fire sale Leafs couldn't get anything for him.  I thought he'd have gotten moved for a late pick tbh, but evidently there were no buyers.

 

 

That was the reality of the trade deadline market.  There is no fault on behalf of Jim Benning -  people can hindsight and pretend that the Vrbata signing wasn’t worthwhile, or that Benning exercises poor judgement in his player evaluations – that imo is utter nonsense.  It is unfortunate/disappointing that the team couldn’t gain an asset, but at the same time, there was no asset loss/spent in the first place.  People can make a ‘loss’ of it if they elect that perspective, but really, the sum of the ‘loss’ at this deadline, would still remain a longshot mid to late pick at best.  Not worth the noise.

 

 

The bottom line:  there was no decision for Benning to make here – Vrbata’s play, his health, and the market defined him as unmovable at the deadline.  I appreciate the fact he elected to come here in the first place.

 

 

 

 

The remainder of the Canuck assets that were not moved – I’m not going to spend much time on.  Players whose season was marked by injuries – Prust, Higgins – that is the reality of the NHL – and this deadline was not exactly one where a great deal of player movement took place.  Higgins is a player I am happy remains in the system – and could still be an important asset, or moved for a return next season should he regain the form that has made him a literal steal and top shelf cap value in his years here.  Regardless of how that turns out, Chris Higgins, like Dan Hamhuis, owes this franchise literally nothing.  Weber, like Vrbata – his production tailed off – no one expected him to have value at the deadline.  Bartkowski  - I like the signing – he was a good, serviceable defenseman at a reasonable cap value.  I did not expect to see Bartkowski moved at the deadline.  Cracknell was a nice signing who played well, exceeded expectations – did not expect him to be dealt, but have to question a bottom-feeder like Edmonton claiming him down the stretch when they’re out of the playoffs and might be opting to get their youth some minutes and experience.  The positive for Cracknell is that he’ll earn an NHL paycheque if Edmonton indeed keeps him on their roster.

 

 

 

Markus Granlund

 

An early deadline move I like.  Hunter Shinkaruk is a player I also like – but I believe that Granlund has as much, if not more upside, with a game that translates better at the NHL level, and is more versatile.  Where Shinkaruk might have played here is a greater question mark, with Daniel Sedin and Baertschi owning the top six LW spots.  I like the decision the Canucks made to opt for the more proven asset and I think Granlund will be a solid fit with some of the young Canucks he’ll be playing with.  Excited to see his progression here – he has looked good early in a Canucks uniform.   An excellent decision as far as I’m concerned, despite it’s unpopularity.

 

Philip Larsen

 

A relative sleeper move amongst all the noise of the deadline – his speed, offensive instincts and upside are a relative no brainer at the price of a 5^th round pick.  The risk/benefit potential of acquiring his rights is a move that had to be made – the fact he did not turn out in Deadmonton and was not interested in returning there - are not deterrents - in the least.   Another player whose progression will be fun to watch - he is precisely the type of player the team is looking to add to the mix of their blueline.

 

 

 

A best case scenario that didn’t work out, a ‘lost’ mid to late pick, a good hockey trade of  young forwards, and the acquisition of a defenseman, for a 5^th round pick, that has the potential to be every bit as much a gain as the perceived pick ‘loss’ of this deadline.

 

Benning’s trade deadline performance - not really the failure it’s being portrayed to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If i could give you more than 1 + I would.

[oldnews]

3 minutes ago, 2inthecup said:

Good essay. I tend to be on this side as well but one thing I think you flew past.

 

 Looking at the situation I feel JB was a victor of some inexperience on Monday. My person feeling is he took too long o making decisions (I feel we could have made a decision on Hamhuis days before), spent too long in a slow negotiation and waiting until Monday to make a deal.

 

This deadline has shown for the most part waiting until the last day puts more pressure on the seller and arguablymore value was given in the days leading up. 

 

I think JB will learn from this and be bethere in the future.  I've liked most of the trades he's made and feel he will do more with his draft picks than Toronto will with twice as many. 

 

 

You're assuming there was something to move on.

 

I look at GMJB's short history here - and he's been anything but indecisive and hesitant.

 

[coho8888]

39 minutes ago, oldnews said:

We've heard all the noise - the drama, baiting, speculating, trolling, protesting, the expectations, disappointment, calling for management’s heads….the usual reactions.  Fun stuff no doubt - and certainly precipitated by the trolls at TSN, the Province, SN - we know who they are – they had their airtime.

 

But now that the dust has settled:  a look at the underlying reality without the slant and emotion of high and low expectations.

 

 

 

An assessment of the Canucks trade deadline decision-making.  

 

 

Most of you probably won't like it - it won't confirm the bulk of what was said and what the herd heard.  

 

 

 

Dan Hamhuis

 

Briefly – Dan Hamhuis has been an elite two way defenseman that came here at no assets cost and helped propel this franchise to a contender.    Canadian Olympian.   Averaged 25-30 pts a season in 6 years here,  playing some of the harder minutes on the Canucks blueline, he has been a cumulative +84 (a statistic that doesn’t mean much when taken out of context, but in the context of Hamhuis’ play, quite impressive).   Dan’s underlying/possession numbers have been simply elite in his time here.  His first five seasons here – every year  he was a player getting less than 50% offensive zone starts, facing very strong quality of competition, always a positive corsi and usually, exceptionally strong  – quite simply, outstanding underlying numbers.

 

Now here’s the dig.  That was then, right?  That’s great and all, but what about now, what about the future?

 

This season was slightly different in a couple senses.  Hamhuis’ minutes were not quite as hard as they’ve been through the duration of his time here.  Partnered primarily with Bartkowski and Weber, his ozone starts were upwards of 50% for the first time in Vancouver – however, Dan’s corsi, correspondingly, was also the best on the Vancouver blueline – the only positive corsi on in fact, and better than either of his partners’.

 

If that’s the case – if Hamhuis is still a solid top 4 NHL defenseman, why didn’t they get get something for him?   Why not get whatever you can, after all, this franchise has had a difficult, injury-riddled season, and is in the process of integrating their youth into the lineup.  The question everyone is asking - why didn’t they capitalize on the opportunity to add to the pick and prospect pool?

 

 

 

The context:

 

1)      Hamhuis  is recovering from a serious injury.

 

2)      His family is expecting a child in the midst of what would be a playoff run had he left to a playoff team

 

3)      Hamhuis wants to stay in Vancouver and want to return to Vancouver.

 

4)      Hamhuis  was willing to waive for the right circumstance, but certainly did not appear thrilled with the prospect of leaving.  He was making a concession for the franchise – in the midst of recovery and what could easily be conceived as more important underlying family matters.

 

5)      Hamhuis would be taking a risk in leaving – a grueling, Western Conference playoff run would be challenging under the circumstances of recovery, and moreover, could pose a risk, if injured, to his subsequent contract.  If he returns to this franchise, a happy, healthy, recovered and rested Dan Hamhuis is a key asset to this franchise next season.

 

6)      A lot is made of the Canucks alleged lack of blueline prospects – if that were in fact true, there is a dual implication – one the one hand the need to add, but on the other, it would only serve to underline the importance of him returning to bridge this franchise’s blueline moving forward.

 

7)      Hamhuis will be one of, if not the best free agent defenseman on the market this summer.

 

8)      Hamhuis is not leveraging his negotiating position with this franchise – he has made it exceedingly clear that he wants and prefers to stay and return as a Vancouver Canuck.

 

9)      Hamhuis remains a top 4 blueliner – and unless that value were met, there is no point in moving him.  “Just taking anything” is nonsense that has been repeated endlessly, but only a fool makes a concession like that to, particularly to asset rich franchises.  You simply do not gift a player like Dan Hamhuis to rival Western Conference contenders, particularly under all the mitigating circumstances.  That is literally a non-starter.  You set the value and if it’s met, you make a move – if not, you don’t bend over to the whims of a buyer’s market.  “Reading” the market is only relevant if you are dead set on moving the player in the first place– that was not and should not have been the case.

 

 

 

Given that context, my belief is that the Canucks approached the trade deadline with a line drawn – if they were able to command a sizeable return in the form they were looking for they’d entertain moving Dan Hamhuis to one of the franchise’s he waived for – Chicago or Dallas.

 

However, a few things underline the challenge there.

 

1)      Best case scenario, Dan would be rented for a solid return and return to Vancouver, ala Antoine Vermette the year before.  However, the fact Hamhuis wanted to stay and return was no secret and moreover, despite strong play since returning from injury, it remained the fact that he was recovering from a serious injury.  Both those things obviously mitigate Hamhuis’ value relative to other options – the potential buyers would have to be willing to spend for a pure rental.  Other options did not necessarily carry those conditions.

 

2)      The market was limited to Western contenders – both of whom had the assets to make a move, but weren’t necessarily offering returns in the form the Canucks were looking for.  Volume of middling assets weren’t necessarily worth moving on imo – a point I’ll return to.

 

 

 

The Chicago Blackhawks:

 

Reported stories regarding the Hawks – Canucks allegedly didn’t move fast enough, Hamhuis “waffled” – imo the ignorant trolling and speculation of media cling-ons with a history of premature ‘reports’, weak, unsubstantiated ‘sources’ and chronic inaccuracy - that didn’t and still don’t really know what actually transpired.  There is no point buying into one story or another – looking at the underlying context imo is far more worthwhile.

 

 

Fact: Chicago elected to spend on Andrew Ladd.  The other fact that gets lost in the noise – they still had the opportunity to acquire Hamhuis afterwards, but simply did not make it happen.  Was there an either/or Andrew Ladd deadline?  Imo, if the Hawks weren’t prepared to move prospects like Pokka, Hartman or comparable value in picks, a deal didn’t necessarily make sense for Vancouver.  The narrative is that the Hawks wanted Hamhuis, were disappointed, frustrated – whatever (quite frankly, who cares?) – they could have made it happen regardless of the Ladd deal, if they were willing to pay the price, but they didn’t.   There is no ‘fault’ involved on Vancouver’s part.  That is merely slanted drama.

 

 

The Dallas Stars:

 

The Stars had the option of a defenseman that might return and a player that would likely be a  pure rental.  Moreover, the Calgary Flames were willing to take a return composed of Jokipakka, Pollock and a late 2^nd.   Dan Hamhuis is the better asset – but was he the better deal for Dallas?  Aside from the likelihood he would not return to Dallas, what was the form of the deal the Canucks were wanting?  This is no small detail – imo the Canucks may have expected comparable overall value – but in all likelihood in the form of a RHD/pmd /Julius Honka as opposed to three middling assets.  Mere speculation on my part, but the organizational needs of Vancouver are not the same as the Calgary Flames.  Jokipakka is not necessarily the (type of) blueliner this franchise is needing/looking for in a return and despite decent cumulative asset value, the return the Flames got does not necessarily make sense for Vancouver.  Hamhuis in my opinion is the better player – an opinion shared by most – but under the circumstances, his trade value slips back to comparable to Russell – and the form that the expected returns is important.

 

 

Dallas elected to move on the Russell deal, and reportedly circled back with a late lowball.  Again, refusing a lowball under the circumstances is a no-brainer.  If it comes down to accepting an exceedingly compromising return, and potentially burning your valuable bridge with Dan Hamhuis, imo that is an easy decision to make.

 

 

The bottom line – the best case scenario was a possible, but difficult and somewhat unlikely one – that certainly could not be banked up (despite lofty expectations of so many) – getting worthwhile value and bringing the player back.  I hoped that could be the case – but I did not expect it would.  It did not turn out – and imo – is no great loss – certainly nowhere near relative to the level of upset and outrage. 

 

 

The fact remains that both sides have the option or re-signing – and in the end, that is far greater value than gifting Dan Hamhuis to a contender for a lowball.   You work on it, survey the market, see what is possible, but in the end, I am glad this management group did not make lowball concessions to either of these franchises.   That would have been unacceptable, desperate, and an insult to Dan Hamhuis.   If these franchises weren’t prepared to pay the price in a form that made sense, so be it. 

 

 

Some of the commentary of ‘analysts’ was downright assinine – guys like former CBJ GM and Sportsnet talking head Doug MacLean suggesting that he’d simply have told Hamhuis that he’s not coming back and taken anything he could get in return.  It’s no surprise that he’s no longer employed as an NHL manager and peer to the likes of PJ Stock and Glen Healy.  One of the best pending UFA defensemen who is willing to return at a non-frenzy UFA hometown price - and some folks wonder why he wasn’t unloaded for cap dump value.  This is why I’ve titled this thread “trade deadline for Dummies” – because the vocal majority have offered literally nothing of analytical value.  

 

 

All things considered, I’m glad Dan Hamhuis remains a Canuck at this point – and hope that remains the case moving forward.  He represents a great deal of value to this franchise – and has stated that he appreciates the way management handled this situation, and the context of the deadline.  Hamhuis has been worth his cap hit every single day he's been a Vancouver Canuck.   In all likelihood he returns - and makes this team far better than any lowball return - as well as representing potential asset value they might trade in the future, depending on how the team progresses.

 

 

 

Benning and the Canucks handled it as it should have been handled.

 

 

 

Radim Vrbata

 

Vrbata reportedly left money on the table to come to Vancouver and play with the Sedins.  No assets cost – and literally, outstanding production in his first season here – his signing was a literal no brainer. 

 

 

For tactical reasons that have been discussed at length on these boards, Vrbata did not make an ideal 5on5 winger on the Sedin line however, despite some aspects of his game that fit well.  A right handed shot, a pitch and catch possession player, a solid defensive forward that had spent his share of time on Phoenix’s shutdown line, Vrbata has a lot of solid attributes to complement the Sedins, however, one thing he is not is a hard areas player that gets in aggressively on the forecheck, creating space for his linemates.  As Henrik noted, those tasks are left to the Sedins with Vrbata on their wing – and for that key reason, alternative wingers were better options despite Vrbata’s strengths.  Vrbata remained an ideal first unit powerplay fixture, but otherwise was utilized – reasonably so – on the second line with young forwards Horvat and Baertschi, who struggled early, but gained some momentum as the season progressed.  The stated reason for that change was scoring “balance”, but it was not that simple – and focusing on outlining tactical issues/challenges is generally not a solid way to message decisions like that.

 

 

Vrbata struggled to finish this year – uncharacteristically.  A player that scored 30 goals the previous season, and touted as one of if not the best UFA signing of the previous summer, had a season defined by struggle and frustration.  In addition, he and Horvat, in the absence of Sutter, were, needless to say, not seeing the type of situational minutes you’d consider ideal to the kind of production Vrbata is capable of.  

 

 

But here is the kicker.  Vrbata not only struggled this year – but he was injured/questionable heading into the trade deadline.   It was definitely not a trade deadline where many forwards were moved for decent returns– and the examples are obvious.

 

 

Brandon Pirri, returned a 6^th round pick.  33 goals in his last 111 games - not a UFA, but an RFA whose rights are now retained by Anaheim..  The market for him was a 6^th round pick.  Surprising to say the least that Dale Tallon settled for that return instead of simply retaining his rights, but he took the 6th.  

 

 

P.A Parenteau had 32 points, 16 goals at 1.5 million for the Leafs *(prorated to about $400 k in cap at the deadline) – and the fire sale Leafs couldn't get anything for him.  I thought he'd have gotten moved for a late pick tbh, but evidently there were no buyers.

 

 

That was the reality of the trade deadline market.  There is no fault on behalf of Jim Benning -  people can hindsight and pretend that the Vrbata signing wasn’t worthwhile, or that Benning exercises poor judgement in his player evaluations – that imo is utter nonsense.  It is unfortunate/disappointing that the team couldn’t gain an asset, but at the same time, there was no asset loss/spent in the first place.  People can make a ‘loss’ of it if they elect that perspective, but really, the sum of the ‘loss’ at this deadline, would still remain a longshot mid to late pick at best.  Not worth the noise.

 

 

The bottom line:  there was no decision for Benning to make here – Vrbata’s play, his health, and the market defined him as unmovable at the deadline.  I appreciate the fact he elected to come here in the first place.

 

 

 

 

The remainder of the Canuck assets that were not moved – I’m not going to spend much time on.  Players whose season was marked by injuries – Prust, Higgins – that is the reality of the NHL – and this deadline was not exactly one where a great deal of player movement took place.  Higgins is a player I am happy remains in the system – and could still be an important asset, or moved for a return next season should he regain the form that has made him a literal steal and top shelf cap value in his years here.  Regardless of how that turns out, Chris Higgins, like Dan Hamhuis, owes this franchise literally nothing.  Weber, like Vrbata – his production tailed off – no one expected him to have value at the deadline.  Bartkowski  - I like the signing – he was a good, serviceable defenseman at a reasonable cap value.  I did not expect to see Bartkowski moved at the deadline.  Cracknell was a nice signing who played well, exceeded expectations – did not expect him to be dealt, but have to question a bottom-feeder like Edmonton claiming him down the stretch when they’re out of the playoffs and might be opting to get their youth some minutes and experience.  The positive for Cracknell is that he’ll earn an NHL paycheque if Edmonton indeed keeps him on their roster.

 

 

 

Markus Granlund

 

An early deadline move I like.  Hunter Shinkaruk is a player I also like – but I believe that Granlund has as much, if not more upside, with a game that translates better at the NHL level, and is more versatile.  Where Shinkaruk might have played here is a greater question mark, with Daniel Sedin and Baertschi owning the top six LW spots.  I like the decision the Canucks made to opt for the more proven asset and I think Granlund will be a solid fit with some of the young Canucks he’ll be playing with.  Excited to see his progression here – he has looked good early in a Canucks uniform.   An excellent decision as far as I’m concerned, despite it’s unpopularity.

 

Philip Larsen

 

A relative sleeper move amongst all the noise of the deadline – his speed, offensive instincts and upside are a relative no brainer at the price of a 5^th round pick.  The risk/benefit potential of acquiring his rights is a move that had to be made – the fact he did not turn out in Deadmonton and was not interested in returning there - are not deterrents - in the least.   Another player whose progression will be fun to watch - he is precisely the type of player the team is looking to add to the mix of their blueline.

 

 

 

A best case scenario that didn’t work out, a ‘lost’ mid to late pick, a good hockey trade of  young forwards, and the acquisition of a defenseman, for a 5^th round pick, that has the potential to be every bit as much a gain as the perceived pick ‘loss’ of this deadline.

 

Benning’s trade deadline performance - not really the failure it’s being portrayed to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great summation.  But I disagree with you on one part.  While I certainly wouldn't have accepted the last "lowball" offer, the three "middling" offers should have been taken.  Regardless of whether those assets would have fit "organization needs" they were assets that could have been used to acquire other ones.  They are like currency.  Heck if they offered 2 promising goalie prospects and the pick we'd take them even if we are currently deep in that area.

[oldnews]

Just now, coho8888 said:

Great summation.  But I disagree with you on one part.  While I certainly wouldn't have accepted the last "lowball" offer, the three "middling" offers should have been taken.  Regardless of whether those assets would have fit "organization needs" they were assets that could have been used to acquire other ones.  They are like currency.  Heck if they offered 2 promising goalie prospects and the pick we'd take them even if we are currently deep in that area.

That is a good point - if you feel the cumulative value is there - and if the trade partner is actually prepared to carry through on a deal.

 

One thing about the Chicago dynamic - it's possible that their intention was dual - to drive up Hamhuis' value in the process of rumouring their serious interest - and handicap / sabotage Dallas' ability to acquire him.

[RonMexico]

10 minutes ago, 2inthecup said:

Good essay. I tend to be on this side as well but one thing I think you flew past.

 

 Looking at the situation I feel JB was a victor of some inexperience on Monday. My person feeling is he took too long o making decisions (I feel we could have made a decision on Hamhuis days before), spent too long in a slow negotiation and waiting until Monday to make a deal.

 

This deadline has shown for the most part waiting until the last day puts more pressure on the seller and arguablymore value was given in the days leading up. 

 

I think JB will learn from this and be bethere in the future.  I've liked most of the trades he's made and feel he will do more with his draft picks than Toronto will with twice as many. 

 

 

 

While he has only been on the job for less than 2 season in Vancouver, he has been part of many trade deadlines before. It's safe to say he knows how to negotiate at the correct speed and with the right timing. What I saw was a guy who has integrity. He is not willing to just take whatever offer comes his way if it's not the deal he wants. Not willing to bow to the demands of people who don't know what they are talking about.

 

I doubt he learned anything from the tdl other than what he already knows; that this market is full of myopians.

[2inthecup]

3 minutes ago, oldnews said:

You're assuming there was something to move on.

Yes exactly, and you're assuming there wasn't.  That's all we can do when we form our opinion. From JBs presser he said they were talking since Friday and just going and forth. Dallas seemed interested in both dmen, part of any job where you are trading commodities is sales. JB had 4 days to sell Hamhuis to the stars and didn't close.  ABC's of sales, Always Be Closing.

 

But like I said he should be a better GM in the future for the experience,  you learn on the job.