Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Hansen MUST be traded this summer and here's why


CHYCHRUN

Recommended Posts

Based on his age, production, and contract he is a perfect fit in Vancouver. I would rather trade him for a 3rd round pick at the end of his contract during the trade deadline than for a 2nd round pick now. 

 

I would trade him for a younger player who can come in right away like Marcus Foligno or a high pick who has struggled to get it together like Yakuov or Nichushkin, perhaps a lower touted player like B. Ritchie or Rychel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone also made the point of losing Hansen through the expansion draft. That could be a very real issue because I don't see management adding him to the protected list. If it does come down before the draft that the expansion is happening at least management has some time to decide whether they trade him at the draft, if they do get significant interest ie: either high 2nd or low 1st...it may be worth the gamble. But only if you aren't going to protect him. With his cap hit I could see him being a big target for the expansion team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Attila Umbrus said:

Someone also made the point of losing Hansen through the expansion draft. That could be a very real issue because I don't see management adding him to the protected list. If it does come down before the draft that the expansion is happening at least management has some time to decide whether they trade him at the draft, if they do get significant interest ie: either high 2nd or low 1st...it may be worth the gamble. But only if you aren't going to protect him. With his cap hit I could see him being a big target for the expansion team.

Precisely!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

Assets.... how does a pick with a low chance of performing as well as Hansen 4 years from now have more value than an established player? How is that good asset management? How many players do we have with his speed, 2 way play, can play on all lines if need be? 1. At a low cap hit.

 

Please explain how a long shot pick is a better asset than that. 

 

Hansen should only be moved for a known asset RFA. Moving him for picks would be a shame.

 

Why is the only definition of 'asset management' excess picks? You say Benning has been bad at this but if you actually look at our roster and prospect depth we are much better than 2 years ago.

 

This is where I think the discussion of potentially dealing Hansen starts to potentially make sense.

Where you have a player's who development you're able to track - are close to an NHL asset - and the progress/ scouting advantages of those +1,2,3 years are there to be seen.

However, I think at this point that those kinds of moves are less necessary.

Benning has already added guys like Etem, Baertshi, Granlund - all imo worth picks in the range we're talking (and Vey, who has a key year ahead of him in determining) - and they accomplished those acquisitions by moving more perpipheral assets than Hansen.  It's not as necessary at this point imo to continue to seek that kind of near/NHL ready youth depth.

 

In addition, the idea that Hansen's value has changed - is delusional.  He's been highly consistent for years - and the idea that a player like Hansen, in his prime, with the kind of motor he has - is on the verge of a steep decline - is silly.   There's no reason to rush a Hansen deal - baring a freak injury (granted Hammer, Higgins, Prust, Burrows all had shat luck in that respect) - you don't plan your future on the possibility of an injury.  Hansen otherwise, will still be valuable in a year. 

 

Bottom line - the draft pick desperation and the insistence that Hansen be moved to add the magic bean late pick - is hasty and ironically short-sighted considering the claims of seeing into the future.  Imo there are two contexts where you potentially deal Hansen for a pick - one in two years if he's an expiring contract - or on the draft floor, with an offer you can't refuse for a known player/pick that you can't let pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not want to see Hansen moved for the same reasons that many other posters have noted. However, if the decision was made to move him I would only support moving him for younger NHL ready prospects as opposed to draft picks. Benning has already demonstrated that he prefers this route through his trades for Gudbranson, Baertschi, Etem and Granlund. I believe he will continue this strategy until such time as he is satisfied that he has stocked the team with enough players in the 21 - 24 year old age group.

 

A number of the posters that want Hansen traded for draft picks have noted that Hansen can be replaced with a UFA this summer and, while this is true, are you sure you really want to go this route. Out of the listed players below who are we going to sign for less than $4 - 5M X 4 years?

 

David Backes. UFA No draft pick needed UFA 32 years old and 50 points

Kyle Okposo: UFA, $2.8 million current salary 60 points 28 years old

Milan Lucic: UFA 28 years old  55 points

Andrew Ladd: UFA 30 years old, 47 points

Loui Eriksson UFA 30 years old, 63 points

Mikkel Boedker UFA 26 years old, 51 points

Eric Staal UFA, 31 years old,  39 points

Tony Brouwer, UFA 30 years old, 39 points.

 

Almost all of them will be older than Hansen is now and will cost twice as much. How long till you guys would be screaming for Benning's head because of his poor asset management signing aging, declining players to such outrageous contracts? And please don't say you just trade them every year for more draft picks and perpetuate the cycle, unless you never want a top UFA to ever sign here again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hansen has pretty much been my favorite since he broke into the scene many many years ago. I've always said those are the kind of guys you need in your line up to win. Maybe not the sexiest player, but is DAMN useful in every situation. I would hate to see him traded. But if it does come to it...I only hope it makes sense for the team...lol, whatever that means only JB knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, blackpluto96 said:

Stopped reading at 'asset management'. This is a sports where you build a team to win games. The end game is not 'sell high buy low', as asset managers would have it. 

And keeping Vrbata and Hamhuis was a great example of that.... both walking... both could've garnished assets. Vrbata especially after his 2014 season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may just be me, but I really think Etem has the chance to be similar to Hansen. He's speedy, has grit, is pretty responsible defensively (not near as good as Hansen but is improving), and of course teases us with scoring chances here and there but has troubles burying them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CHYCHRUN said:

And keeping Vrbata and Hamhuis was a great example of that.... both walking... both could've garnished assets. Vrbata especially after his 2014 season.

Because Vrbata was cheap and had a great year. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rick Blight said:

I do not want to see Hansen moved for the same reasons that many other posters have noted. However, if the decision was made to move him I would only support moving him for younger NHL ready prospects as opposed to draft picks. Benning has already demonstrated that he prefers this route through his trades for Gudbranson, Baertschi, Etem and Granlund. I believe he will continue this strategy until such time as he is satisfied that he has stocked the team with enough players in the 21 - 24 year old age group.

 

A number of the posters that want Hansen traded for draft picks have noted that Hansen can be replaced with a UFA this summer and, while this is true, are you sure you really want to go this route. Out of the listed players below who are we going to sign for less than $4 - 5M X 4 years?

 

David Backes. UFA No draft pick needed UFA 32 years old and 50 points

Kyle Okposo: UFA, $2.8 million current salary 60 points 28 years old

Milan Lucic: UFA 28 years old  55 points

Andrew Ladd: UFA 30 years old, 47 points

Loui Eriksson UFA 30 years old, 63 points

Mikkel Boedker UFA 26 years old, 51 points

Eric Staal UFA, 31 years old,  39 points

Tony Brouwer, UFA 30 years old, 39 points.

 

Almost all of them will be older than Hansen is now and will cost twice as much. How long till you guys would be screaming for Benning's head because of his poor asset management signing aging, declining players to such outrageous contracts? And please don't say you just trade them every year for more draft picks and perpetuate the cycle, unless you never want a top UFA to ever sign here again.

Good post - and moreover - they already have the cap to sign a good UFA - and will have yet more at their disposal.  None of those names can be counted on to sign here - and with the developing young players, there is also the competing matter of whether a UFA would be getting in the way of a young player down the road.  I think there are a couple potential guys on that list that would make sense in context - and landing one of them would certainly not necessitate dealing Hansen, who, no matter how one looks at it, gives the team more relative flexibility and options than long term big cap deals to any of those players.  Signing one of those players still leaves the team the option of dealing Hansen in the future if things don't progress as they hoped, or they deem they need an extra prospect in their system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Alflives said:

There are several things that don't add up for a rebuilding team, and managing assets is at the top of the list.  Hansen should be moved, and if not now then certainly at his UFA Trade deadline.  But he won't be.  JB fails to acquire assets, when he should.  

Then explain the addition of : Etem, Baertschi, and Vey  On a lesser scale the addition of : Laplante, Garteig and Stecher? Fore sake of argument that is 2 first rounders and a 4th for 3 seconds ! The addition of the college free agent is like getting 3rd to 6th round picks already 3 years into their development. I say his assets management is a way above any poster on this site, whom simple don't have the hockey smarts to have thought of these deals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Good post - and moreover - they already have the cap to sign a good UFA - and will have yet more at their disposal.  None of those names can be counted on to sign here - and with the developing young players, there is also the competing matter of whether a UFA would be getting in the way of a young player down the road.  I think there are a couple potential guys on that list that would make sense in context - and landing one of them would certainly not necessitate dealing Hansen, who, no matter how one looks at it, gives the team more relative flexibility and options than long term big cap deals to any of those players.  Signing one of those players still leaves the team the option of dealing Hansen in the future if things don't progress as they hoped, or they deem they need an extra prospect in their system.

I completely agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Attila Umbrus said:

Someone also made the point of losing Hansen through the expansion draft. That could be a very real issue because I don't see management adding him to the protected list. If it does come down before the draft that the expansion is happening at least management has some time to decide whether they trade him at the draft, if they do get significant interest ie: either high 2nd or low 1st...it may be worth the gamble. But only if you aren't going to protect him. With his cap hit I could see him being a big target for the expansion team.

It an important point to consider - and at the same time, so is the possibility of losing a handful of other players, so you have to weigh those assets against each other and ask yourself if losing Hansen is the worst outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Attila Umbrus said:

Someone also made the point of losing Hansen through the expansion draft. That could be a very real issue because I don't see management adding him to the protected list. If it does come down before the draft that the expansion is happening at least management has some time to decide whether they trade him at the draft, if they do get significant interest ie: either high 2nd or low 1st...it may be worth the gamble. But only if you aren't going to protect him. With his cap hit I could see him being a big target for the expansion team.

 

23 minutes ago, CHYCHRUN said:

Precisely!

Let me understand this line of thought... The team trading for an 30 year old man that scores 38. Is going to protect him in the up and coming expansion draft?  But if we keep him, we wont protect him?   Is he worth protecting for any team he is traded for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think we should trade Hansen. His value has never (and will never) be higher. After years of spending some games with the Sedins, he finally found his groove. He discovered that a lead shot works if you aim it right. Nobody will say Daniel has a rocket, but he times it just right. 

 

I expect our team to sign a top RW to play with the twins. The question becomes, who plays with Baert - Horvat, and who plays with Sutter?

 

I think Virtanen has earned the spot beside Horvat. He came on strong at the tail end and, combined with Bo, will provide a hard body to play against.

 

Right now Sutter's wingers are Burrows, Higgins and Hansen.  Burrows might be back, Higgins definitely won't be - at least not in the NHL. 

 

I think if we look to teams that are wanting to win now, Hansen is very ideal. He's fast, he's gritty, he can score, and he has a great AAV for the next year. A contending cap team will be looking for a guy like him.

 

If we can get the right prospect, I'm happy to go for it.

However, I don't think we are in any rush to trade him. I don't see any issue in his re-signing after this year if we want him. And his experience last year will be invaluable regardless of what line he plays on.

He is one of our bargaining chips. If we could pair his deal with Higgins that'd be ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 16ToWin said:

 

Let me understand this line of thought... The team trading for an 30 year old man that scores 38. Is going to protect him in the up and coming expansion draft?  But if we keep him, we wont protect him?   Is he worth protecting for any team he is traded for?

I personally think most teams interested in Hansen would be competing for the cup. His cap hit benefits them now, but if he's lost to an expansion team it's more palatable to them than us. But I am also completely talking out of my ass on this one lol. All I know is IF the Canucks do not want to lose him in the expansion draft and they don't protect him then it may be best to trade him. Because of his low cap hit and his value to a team he would be a pretty big target for the expansion team...heck what team would not want Hansen in their line up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jam126 said:

For?

I could speculate  what he wouldve fetched after a 32 goal 33 assist season with a yr left on his contract but I won't. I will say, it would've been a lot! More than the chump change JB was offered at the deadline this yr that for sure. What did we get for him? Oh right, they were trying to make the playoffs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...