The Bookie Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 13 minutes ago, two drink minimum said: That's too bad. I think JB is making a mistake here keeping Sbisa ahead of Hammer. Much rather pay Dan the 3.5 to play with Tryamkin and help along the young kids. Just a waste to have that kind of experience walk out the door 6 minutes ago, captainhorvat said: I agree get rid of sbisa and keep hammer. Sbisa cant even stay healthy. Keep in mind whichever of the two we keep will probably be who we offer up in expansion next year. Odds are the only other expendable D who will meet the games played threshold will be Biega. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono2009 Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 33 minutes ago, Squamfan said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono2009 Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 12 minutes ago, captainhorvat said: I agree get rid of sbisa and keep hammer. Sbisa cant even stay healthy. I am longing for the day the Canucks trade Sbisa. His play is garbage and he is overpaid by 3 million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono2009 Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 50 minutes ago, Rocksterh8 said: He screwed Canucks at trade deadline. Don't let the door hit you on the way out! Idiot comment of the day goes to you!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
higgyfan Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Was really hoping the team would find a way to sign him. I though he was a great mentor for the young dmen. Imo, he will be missed and there will be regrets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PunjabiCanucks Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Def should get rid of Sbisa and resign hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 1 hour ago, NUCKER67 said: I agree, I mean, why not sign him for 2 years at a discount. Canucks always need extra D in the early new year heading down the stretch. Who do the young guys look to for mentorship now? Edler? Tanev? Both those guys are real good players, but not exactly vocal leaders of this team. I think they'll regret letting Hammy walk. why not sign him for 2 years at a discount. Do you know for a fact that he would accept that, given he still thinks of himself as a top 4 D. Do you know that he would accept 2 years?? There were talks, were they about a short term deal at a discount, my guess is yes they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 49 minutes ago, jono2009 said: Well documented that he did. Canucks didn't make a transaction happen. That doesn't fall on Dan. The limitations of three teams does. One team wasn't interested the other two he was the backup plan. Both those teams got their primary player. Washington wanted him and he declined to go. That does fall on Dan. Just as Vrbata giving a list he knew wouldn't be interested is on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathew Barzal Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Of course it's more fun winning, that's why Kesler got out while he still had some prime years left in him. You're over the hill now Dan, good luck though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Screw Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 43 minutes ago, elvis15 said: Who else do you let go of to fit him in? We have Edler, Hutton, Sbisa, Tryamkin, and Pedan as left handed defenceman. Sbisa and Tryamkin have had success playing on the right, but we also have Tanev, Gudbranson, Larsen and Biega on that side. That's already 9 guys (aka one too many) without Hamhuis, and then you have Juolevi, Stecher and others wanting an NHL spot. We're already going to waive one of Pedan or Biega (like Biega, since he's most likely to not get claimed) so I'm not sure we have the space. We definitely aren't trading Hutton, Tanev, Gudbranson or Tryamkin. Sbisa is tough to trade even if I'd like to and then bring Hamhuis back in his place. Edler still has a lot of value to this team (probably mroe than his trade value) and has a choice in if he stays or goes due to his NTC. So who goes instead? Hamhuis> Sbisa, Biega, Larson, Pedan Take your pick, HELL, take all four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks Curse Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 44 minutes ago, timberz21 said: I believe he gets more than 4.5/5M for a short term contract or 4M for a 4/5 years contract. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appleboy Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 1 hour ago, b3. said: This year somewhat. But I still believe they should have traded him last summer, when his value was way higher. This is the kind of talk that I don't understand. You want management to trade a player who is coming off a 30 goal year. Move him out from a team who just had a 100 point season. Replace his goals with what? How do you sell that. That is a hind sight statement. Please share your crystal ball with us. What will this year bring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 14 minutes ago, Screw said: Hamhuis> Sbisa, Biega, Larson, Pedan Take your pick, HELL, take all four. Doesn't really answer the question. How do you move Sbisa? Do you risk losing Pedan on waivers? And why do Larsen and Biega even matter if they're right side D when Hamhuis plays left side? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rawkdrummer Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Trade Sbisa keep the Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Soldier Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 1 hour ago, b3. said: Ownership screwed this and the Vrbata situation up BIG time. Citation needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firestorm238 Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Honestly - I know he's getting older, but he was fantastic in the last part of last season. I'd keep him around on a short term contract (2 years x 2-3 mil) just so he can mentor the young D in our system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wai_lai416 Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 all the Hamhuis hater out there b*tching about him nixing trades and what not.. give your head a f*king shake.. he owes nothing to the team.. he earned his NTC.. and earned the rights to use it if indeed he nix the trade.. they signed him to a NTC so he has the right to say whether he wants to move or not.. it's understandable he puts family before the team.. why help a team that doesn't want you? especially a team that doesn't care much for him as apparent by JB.. i mean it's apparent JB didn't want to re-sign hamhuis as there was no talk or mention about any discussion about extension at any point during the year despite Hamhuis mentioning multiple times he'd like to stay.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Screw Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 34 minutes ago, elvis15 said: Doesn't really answer the question. How do you move Sbisa? Do you risk losing Pedan on waivers? And why do Larsen and Biega even matter if they're right side D when Hamhuis plays left side? As far as play is concerned I would even take Hamhuis (healthy of course) over Edler. I don't see a problem with running with 8 d-Men. Have Sbisa and Pedan as #7 & #8. If you needed to move one I would send Pedan down for playing time I suppose. If the Canucks are looking to be competitive I would argue that a 33 year old Hamhuis would be a perfect fit paired with one of our younger D-men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Cool, just so that it's clear, you're good with Sbisa's $3.5M sitting in the press box and losing Pedan to waivers. And of course whoever of Larsen and Biega would also be lost just from a numbers perspective. That's all I needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobSacamano Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 How on earth are people saying he screwed the Canucks? It was his right to waive his NTC - whether he did or didn't, or only had a few teams on his list, he was operating within in the contract the Canucks gave him. On a side note, I'd re-up him for a few years (while we wait for Juolevi) and trade Tanev or Edler for some offense that isn't on the downside of their career like the UFA's we're supposedly after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.