Re-signing Dan Hamhuis (POLL)

[oldnews]

Just now, TheGuardian_ said:

Moot point,

 

He will sign for whichever team in the west will give him a NTC at lower money.

 

If you could speak for him you may have a point - but we don't know what Hamhuis' preferences are - it could very well be to stay in BC - as he indicated he'd prefer in his post-deadline commentary.  We don't know.

So, no - it's not a moot point.

[Bob Long]

Just now, stawns said:

how do you figure it`s lost.......Sbisa played well when he was healthy last year, including significant time on is offside.  People who complain about him just don`t have the base of knowledge for the position to understand his play, that`s it......or they expect him to be a 1,2 or 3 dman, which he`s not.  He`s a solid 5 or 4 dman.

he's also #11 in the league in getting the opposition to cough up the puck 

 

http://www.vancourier.com/pass-it-to-bulis/the-redemption-of-luca-sbisa-has-begun-1.2121604

[Bob Long]

3 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Moot point,

 

He will sign for whichever team in the west will give him a NTC at lower money.

 

I see 3 or 4 years @ 3 mil with a MNTC at best.

 

Edmonton is in need of the type of player he is for mentoring the young defence they have.

 

Anyone watching the playoffs can see that he would be valuable to any of the teams still playing.

 

Still all this talk about tanking.

 

Name six teams that will finish below the Canucks next year? It isn't tanking anymore, tanking is what a good team does!

 

 

 

 

I wonder if Edmonton would trade anything for his rights... we could get that mythical 6th rounder back... 

[Nucker 67]

I don't believe Hamhuis cares as much about the money as most players. He wants to play in Vancouver, go home to his wife and kids at night and spend time with his family when he's not with the team. He doesn't want to uproot the family and move them to a strange city or be away from his family for long periods of time. His priorities are different than a younger player wanting to cash in on money and term with a contender. I can almost see him retiring early if he doesn't re-sign with VAN. Yes, he considered one team, at the trade deadline, but that would've only been for 2-3 months with a legit shot at the Cup.

[VIC_CITY]

I definitely agree that a NTC will be part of any deal that he signs. I would even give him a no movement clause if we could get him down to 2 years @ $3.6. Either way, there isn't a ton of risk on a 2 year deal. We may even re-sign him as a bottom pairing dman after 2 years.

[chon derry]

4 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

 Yes, he considered one team, at the trade deadline, but that would've only been for 2-3 months with a legit shot at the Cup.

only because he was put on the spot and asked if he'd waive, i don't know why ppl are sayin he'd want a ntc 2 year deal ,i'm not certain but i think he'd be happy with a 2 yr deal here and then , retire a canuck .without a ntc.

[VIC_CITY]

1 minute ago, chon derry said:

only because he was put on the spot and asked if he'd waive, i don't know why ppl are sayin he'd want a ntc 2 year deal ,i'm not certain but i think he'd be happy with a 2 yr deal here and then , retire a canuck .without a ntc.

How can you be sure he'd retire a Canuck when he could just as easily be traded?

 

Plus, he's only 33 years old and could play another 4-5 seasons no problem. Look at Jagr. Yes, he's a freak of nature but he's more than 10 years older and has made way more money than Hamhuis. Not to mention Hamhuis has never won a Stanley Cup. Retire? Hamhuis has A LOT more in the tank.

 

 

[chon derry]

1 minute ago, VIC_CITY said:

How can you be sure he'd retire a Canuck when he could just as easily be traded?

 

Plus, he's only 33 years old and could play another 4-5 seasons no problem. Look at Jagr. Yes, he's a freak of nature but he's more than 10 years older and has made way more money than Hamhuis. Not to mention Hamhuis has never won a Stanley Cup. Retire? Hamhuis has A LOT more in the tank.

 

 

i dont disagree at all i guess i should have said i'd be happy to see him here for 2 more years.

[VIC_CITY]

1 minute ago, chon derry said:

i dont disagree at all i guess i should have said i'd be happy to see him here for 2 more years.

Me too. He will definitely want a NTC though. Which is fine by me.

 

Side note - I don't like these modified NTCs that Benning has been giving out. It's too easy to just name 8 teams (or whatever the number is) that aren't even interested in trading for you when the time comes. Which is essentially circumventing the agreement. If I'm Benning I'm asking for a list of those teams up front, right away. That way when the time comes, some of those teams might actually be viable trade options and depending on how the season plays out, the player may be willing to expand his list.

[snipes2539]

If that were the offer I'd take that in a heartbeat, I'd even do less money (3.5) for 3 years.  Let's be real, the Canucks aren't going to be competing for the cup in 2 years, heck even 4-5 years.  Having a vet like Hamhuis is great for young players to learn from, and we do have a good number of young d-men coming up through the system.   Then when he's nearing the end of his contract, he's still a solid rental player for a team chasing the cup, and he'll likely retire after that.

[chon derry]

9 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

Me too. He will definitely want a NTC though. Which is fine by me.

 

Side note - I don't like these modified NTCs that Benning has been giving out. It's too easy to just name 8 teams (or whatever the number is) that aren't even interested in trading for you when the time comes. Which is essentially circumventing the agreement. If I'm Benning I'm asking for a list of those teams up front, right away. That way when the time comes, some of those teams might actually be viable trade options and depending on how the season plays out, the player may be willing to expand his list.

every player wants to hoist the cup , and hammer 's no different, but a lot of players can have a lengthy career and not have as many   international appearances and awards , or junior awards as hammer , even if he stays here (no cup) he could look back at a pretty successful career.

[JamesB]

3 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

IMO the best possible contract that we will get DH to sign is 2 years at $4M per. He can get more money and at least 3 years on the open market. Plus, he isn't taking less money than Luca Sbisa, nor should he. I know our D will be a little bit crowded but Hammer is a great team guy and would be an asset to the development of our young defensemen. So I think we need to get this deal done.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

3 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

Honestly, $4.0M isn't bad. He plays big minutes, is very good defensively, makes a solid outlet passes under pressure, great mentor for the kids. Personally, I'd rather have Hamhuis than Edler.

Vic is pretty much on target in my view. Yes we all agree that Sbisa is overpaid, but his contract still matters and it would still be insulting to Hammer to offer the same as or less than Sbisa, and that would just cause problems down the road. Also, I think Hammer is worth more than 4 million per year in free agency.

 

With injuries, a teams needs at least 8 good defencemen in the system. The real problem for the Canucks is lack of top 4 guys. Hammer still does a good job of playing in the top 4. And while he is a veteran, he is not that old. He is currently 33 and he should be a good player for the next couple of years. 

 

Plus he is a great guy in the community and as a teammate. A guy as committed to the team as he is provides a lot of value to the team. Benning would be making a mistake to undervalue that. My big fear is that the Canucks go after another UFA D instead and end up paying more for a guy who is not as good (like Russell).

 

Frankly, while Benning is a good judge of young talent, he is not so good with the vets in my opinion. With young guys, all you have is the "eye test" but with vets there is a lot of data on their performance but Benning does not seem to factor that in. On the analytics he is good value. (See http://thecanuckway.com/2016/01/07/vancouver-canucks-dan-hamhuis-importance-ignored/).

 

As for a possible NTC, I would suggest that is okay but that it comes off just before trade deadline in the 2nd and final year of the contract.

[Putgolzin]

1 hour ago, stawns said:

The way he played after he came back from injury, he was easily worth $4m.......or more.  I`d care about term more than dollars.

Ok fair/fine I'd even be ok at $4m...I like him and want him on the team.

i guess I'm reading between the lines of what I think management will realistically offer him...if he wants $4m, I think Benning will tell him to find it elsewhere...id be overjoyed to be wrong 

[xereau]

I'd like to see the Canucks bring Willie Mitchell into the organization for some home grown defensive mentoring.  His playing days may be over (nothing official yet) but he can definitely have an impact on this upcoming D core.

[VIC_CITY]

1 hour ago, snipes2539 said:

If that were the offer I'd take that in a heartbeat, I'd even do less money (3.5) for 3 years.  Let's be real, the Canucks aren't going to be competing for the cup in 2 years, heck even 4-5 years.  Having a vet like Hamhuis is great for young players to learn from, and we do have a good number of young d-men coming up through the system.   Then when he's nearing the end of his contract, he's still a solid rental player for a team chasing the cup, and he'll likely retire after that.

Whoa there Debbie Downer! Who ever thought San Jose would ever be a win away from the SCF without completely blowing their team up 1st? No one knows what the future holds. With a big summer, this team is ready to compete for a playoff spot NEXT year. All of our prospects will be entering their prime in 4-5 years. There is no reason why we shouldn't be a contender in 4-5 years. We're not the Oilers pal!

 

[snipes2539]

10 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

Whoa there Debbie Downer! Who ever thought San Jose would ever be a win away from the SCF without completely blowing their team up 1st? No one knows what the future holds. With a big summer, this team is ready to compete for a playoff spot NEXT year. All of our prospects will be entering their prime in 4-5 years. There is no reason why we shouldn't be a contender in 4-5 years. We're not the Oilers pal!

 

Lol Debbie Downer? I just feel it's fair to not expect the Canucks to compete for the cup for 4-5 years.  I don't think that's a debbie downer, I think it's a reasonable expectation, I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but just think of how long Chicago had Keith (7 years), Seabrook (6 years), Kane (3) and Toews (3) in their organization before winning the cup.  And they had a solid support cast around them too.

 

So how many of the Canucks prospects are close in comparison to any of those 4?  So yea 4-5 years before actually competing for a cup is a fair expectation in my opinion.

[VIC_CITY]

8 minutes ago, snipes2539 said:

Lol Debbie Downer? I just feel it's fair to not expect the Canucks to compete for the cup for 4-5 years.  I don't think that's a debbie downer, I think it's a reasonable expectation, I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but just think of how long Chicago had Keith (7 years), Seabrook (6 years), Kane (3) and Toews (3) in their organization before winning the cup.  And they had a solid support cast around them too.

 

So how many of the Canucks prospects are close in comparison to any of those 4?  So yea 4-5 years before actually competing for a cup is a fair expectation in my opinion.

Well, to be fair, you said they won't be competing for a cup in 4-5 years. Unless I misinterpreted? But as long as we're a Stanley Cup contender in 4 years, I'm happy. I think it's a realistic expectation. If we progress to the point that we're a playoff contender next year then there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be a cup contender in 4 years. If not, it will mean Benning and TL will have failed. The only way I can see that happening is they go all out in free agency and have it completely back fire.

[snipes2539]

4 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

Well, to be fair, you said they won't be competing for a cup in 4-5 years. Unless I misinterpreted? But as long as we're a Stanley Cup contender in 4 years, I'm happy. I think it's a realistic expectation. If we progress to the point that we're a playoff contender next year then there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be a cup contender in 4 years. If not, it will mean Benning and TL will have failed. The only way I can see that happening is they go all out in free agency and have it completely back fire.

Ah yes that's my bad, when I said at least 4-5 years I meant to say that I don't expect them to compete for the cup until 4-5 years from now.  So we are in agreement, fair expectation that the current plan should see this team be competing in the playoffs in at most 4-5 years (whether or not we expect them to win the cup is another story haha).

[VIC_CITY]

6 minutes ago, snipes2539 said:

Ah yes that's my bad, when I said at least 4-5 years I meant to say that I don't expect them to compete for the cup until 4-5 years from now.  So we are in agreement, fair expectation that the current plan should see this team be competing in the playoffs in at most 4-5 years (whether or not we expect them to win the cup is another story haha).

LOL oh god...it's just so hard to imagine a world in which the Vancouver Canucks are Stanley Cup champions. I don't even think I've ever dreamt that they've won. I dream that monsters, dinosaurs and terrorists are trying kill me, but never that the Canucks won the Stanley Cup

 

 

[snipes2539]

2 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

LOL oh god...it's just so hard to imagine a world in which the Vancouver Canucks are Stanley Cup champions. I don't even think I've ever dreamt that they've won. I dream that monsters, dinosaurs and terrorists are trying kill me, but never that the Canucks won the Stanley Cup

 

 

It's not hard to imagine I've done it every year since EA NHL 2000, 01, 02, 03, etc....