Quinn Hughes | #43 | D

[tas]

1 hour ago, Deathrowe said:

Any chance Hughes could play March 6th against the Leafs? Travelling to Van for my first game at Rogers.

that's probably just about the very earliest game that he could potentially play in, and seeing as it's the leafs (and therefore, without looking at a calendar, presumably hnic), I could see the canucks really wanting to get him in there for the marquee matchup, but I would personally cross my fingers rather than holding my breath. 

[messier's_elbow]

23 hours ago, Squamfan said:

is brain rafalski a good comparable to him

Yeah I can see that. I was thinking Brian Leetch or Phil Housley. 

[Grape]

5 hours ago, Deathrowe said:

Any chance Hughes could play March 6th against the Leafs? Travelling to Van for my first game at Rogers.

 

3 hours ago, tas said:

that's probably just about the very earliest game that he could potentially play in, and seeing as it's the leafs (and therefore, without looking at a calendar, presumably hnic), I could see the canucks really wanting to get him in there for the marquee matchup, but I would personally cross my fingers rather than holding my breath. 

No, earliest end to Michigan's season is the 9th, assuming they get swept out of the first round of the Big Ten Tournament by a lower seed (probably either Wisconsin or MSU). If we win, the Canucks will have to wait in one-week intervals for Michigan to play again next (semis on the 16th and finals on the 23rd). If Michigan wins the Big Ten, Canucks will have to wait until again in one-week intervals for Michigan to play again in the NCAA tournament (two games around the end of March), then on April 11th and 13th if they advance to the Frozen Four. Any loss in that period (other than the first round of the Big Ten Toruney where it's a best of 3), will result in Michigan's season ending. 

 

My guess is that Michigan will advance in the first round, but lose either in the Big Ten semifinals or finals. That would mean Quinn's season ends on March 16th or March 23rd.

[Alflives]

2 hours ago, messier's_elbow said:

Yeah I can see that. I was thinking Brian Leetch or Phil Housley. 

You do realize Quinn skates way better that Leetch and Housley.  Quinn Hughes is a very special player.  His skating, puck skills, compete level, and smarts make him unique.  He will easily be our best D man ever.  

[tas]

22 minutes ago, Grape said:

 

No, earliest end to Michigan's season is the 9th, assuming they get swept out of the first round of the Big Ten Tournament by a lower seed (probably either Wisconsin or MSU). If we win, the Canucks will have to wait in one-week intervals for Michigan to play again next (semis on the 16th and finals on the 23rd). If Michigan wins the Big Ten, Canucks will have to wait until again in one-week intervals for Michigan to play again in the NCAA tournament (two games around the end of March), then on April 11th and 13th if they advance to the Frozen Four. Any loss in that period (other than the first round of the Big Ten Toruney where it's a best of 3), will result in Michigan's season ending. 

 

My guess is that Michigan will advance in the first round, but lose either in the Big Ten semifinals or finals. That would mean Quinn's season ends on March 16th or March 23rd.

my mistake, for some reason I was thinking the tournament was one-and-done.

[70seven]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

You do realize Quinn skates way better that Leetch and Housley.  Quinn Hughes is a very special player.  His skating, puck skills, compete level, and smarts make him unique.  He will easily be our best D man ever.  

Until we sign Erik Karlsson this summer. 

 

[Chicken.]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

You do realize Quinn skates way better that Leetch and Housley.  Quinn Hughes is a very special player.  His skating, puck skills, compete level, and smarts make him unique.  He will easily be our best D man ever.  

I hope his compete level is Petey like. He has all the talent to do great things, looking forward to his showcase where hes sure to be challenged and will be a timely eye opener before the summer.

[Grape]

One thing to note is that Travis Green is definitely a much different coach compared to Mel Pearson - Quinn's current coach, and so it'll be interesting to see how Hughes meshes with Green.

 

Pearson is an incredibly encouraging coach who is often complimentary, including with Quinn's defensive style. Pearson gives Hughes all the freedom to play his game, and puts Hughes out there for long shifts. As a result Hughes loves Pearson and talks about how he is extremely encouraging and great for him.

 

That's not to say Green isn't any of that - but he's much more old-school, and more of a "do this if you want playing time, if not you won't get playing time" type of coach, and I feel like Green might have a hard time adjusting to Hughes' play as much as Hughes will have a hard time staying within the system. And while Hughes isn't outwardly expressive, he's competitive in a more introverted way, and does get frustrated, and so the change in coaching styles I think will be a challenge

 

This is different from for example, a Horvat, who is willing compete for anybody, or a Boeser, who is easy-going and coachable, or Pettersson, who is so talented and smart that he's a coaches pet from day one. Quinn has a personality (I would say close to Pettersson's), and it is reflected on ice, and it may be tough to deal with for a bit because his play isn't methodical like Pettersson.

 

This, along with the fact that he is a defenseman, is why unlike Boeser or Pettersson, I don't expect too much out of Hughes in the first few games of his career. In fact, I would be patient with mistakes being made, and understand that more good is eventually going to come out of him than bad with his unique style of play. 

Edited February 26, 2019 by Grape

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

On 2/22/2019 at 2:26 PM, canuckledraggin said:

I know Sid has been saying that, but every other pundit is saying it's 10 games. I'd still like to know definitively what that rule is, because 10 games is manageable if we want to keep him under that number, but he will for sure get 1 game.

I feel like this must have been talked about in detail somewhere in this thread, but I am honestly concerned with this.

 

Brock Boeser played 9 games and burned a year on his contract.  Benning is treating Hughes the same way here.  I do not understand why Benning is always so eager to get the college guys straight into the NHL, especially when the team isn't a playoff contender.

 

The only reason we are pushing this year is because the West is incredibly weak.  If things go right the rest of the season (so far it hasn't), then we will be a wild card.  But we really need one more year to finish that rebuild.  We do not need Quinn Hughes to be this year's 11th hour hero.  To burn his first year would be as pointless as what Benning did with Boeser.

 

My other concern is whether Hughes plays out the rest of the year with the Comets and plays 10+ games.  Will that burn his first year?

[Canuck Surfer]

23 minutes ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

Brock Boeser played 9 games and burned a year on his contract. 

That can work for, or against you. Boeser did not break out for 50 plus goals this year.

 

He might next?

 

Seattle expansion is a factor. That aside, I think Benning is correct to let his player decide.

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

22 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

That can work for, or against you. Boeser did not break out for 50 plus goals this year.

 

He might next?

 

Seattle expansion is a factor. That aside, I think Benning is correct to let his player decide.

I dont see your point with Seattle.

 

I do understand that Boeser would demand more money after three successful seasons as opposed to just two.  I get that he will probably earn a little less because Benning burned the first year....

 

... is what I would like to believe.  Benning is a mercurial GM.  Sometimes he is really good and sometimes he just isn't.  If burning the first years of Boeser and Hughes means we save a bit of money when we re-sign them to 8-year big boy contracts, then that's a win.  But it has to make a difference or otherwise the first years were burned for no reason.

[Canuck Surfer]

23 minutes ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

I dont see your point with Seattle.

 

I do understand that Boeser would demand more money after three successful seasons as opposed to just two.  I get that he will probably earn a little less because Benning burned the first year....

 

... is what I would like to believe.  Benning is a mercurial GM.  Sometimes he is really good and sometimes he just isn't.  If burning the first years of Boeser and Hughes means we save a bit of money when we re-sign them to 8-year big boy contracts, then that's a win.  But it has to make a difference or otherwise the first years were burned for no reason.

If he does not play till next year, he will be exempt fpm Seattle selecting him & we can protect a separate D.

[Sean Monahan]

2 hours ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

I dont see your point with Seattle.

 

I do understand that Boeser would demand more money after three successful seasons as opposed to just two.  I get that he will probably earn a little less because Benning burned the first year....

 

... is what I would like to believe.  Benning is a mercurial GM.  Sometimes he is really good and sometimes he just isn't.  If burning the first years of Boeser and Hughes means we save a bit of money when we re-sign them to 8-year big boy contracts, then that's a win.  But it has to make a difference or otherwise the first years were burned for no reason.

It’s pretty common practice. I think it’s done as a show of good faith to get the player-management relationship off on the right foot and as a means of enticing the player to sign. 

[Grape]

9 minutes ago, Sean Monahan said:

It’s pretty common practice. I think it’s done as a show of good faith to get the player-management relationship off on the right foot and as a means of enticing the player to sign. 

Yeah, I think the main thing honestly isn't management being incompetent or anything like that. It's really just saying, "hey, we're not gonna be petty and try to limit your games for our benefit, if you play 9 games, you play 9 games, if you don't, then you don't, simple as that, because your development is the only thing that matters."

[WeneedLumme]

4 hours ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

I dont see your point with Seattle.

 

I do understand that Boeser would demand more money after three successful seasons as opposed to just two.  I get that he will probably earn a little less because Benning burned the first year....

 

... is what I would like to believe.  Benning is a mercurial GM.  Sometimes he is really good and sometimes he just isn't.  If burning the first years of Boeser and Hughes means we save a bit of money when we re-sign them to 8-year big boy contracts, then that's a win.  But it has to make a difference or otherwise the first years were burned for no reason.

 

1 hour ago, Sean Monahan said:

It’s pretty common practice. I think it’s done as a show of good faith to get the player-management relationship off on the right foot and as a means of enticing the player to sign. 

Exactly. Making the players happy is definitely not "no reason".

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

Okay guys.  So be it.  Let Benning burn the first year for the sake of starting off on the right foot.  Then I suppose there's no point in even asking what the criteria is then.  The rules behind that are still very unclear to me.

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

Okay guys.  So be it.  Let Benning burn the first year for the sake of starting off on the right foot.  Then I suppose there's no point in even asking what the criteria is then.  The rules behind that are still very unclear to me.

Plays even one game and he burns a year off ELC. Has to play 10+ to be elligible for expansion draft though. So ideally we play him 9 or less so he burns the year (makes player happy, gets him some experience so he knows what to expect next year) but keeps him under the threshold for needing an expansion slot.

[73 Percent]

5 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Plays even one game and he burns a year off ELC. Has to play 10+ to be elligible for expansion draft though. So ideally we play him 9 or less so he burns the year (makes player happy, gets him some experience so he knows what to expect next year) but keeps him under the threshold for needing an expansion slot.

Yeah I'm not sure what people arent getting here.

[Fanuck]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Plays even one game and he burns a year off ELC. Has to play 10+ to be elligible for expansion draft though. So ideally we play him 9 or less so he burns the year (makes player happy, gets him some experience so he knows what to expect next year) but keeps him under the threshold for needing an expansion slot.

Ideally yes, 9gms then protect his ELC status, but I can't see JB doing that.

Hughes either turns pro at the end of Michigan's season and plays the reminder of the season with the Canucks - regardless of whether he burns his ELC year or not - or he doesn't turn pro at all this year.  That's just how I see it though, maybe JB has some sort of plan for Hughes we don't know about?  In the past JB has shown he's not afraid to move on from guys either from trades and/or waivers so I don't see him taking extra steps just to protect one possible player from expansion. 

 

Michigan isn't ranked in the top 16 NCAA teams so if I understand their system correctly, Hughes may be eligible to sign as soon as the 2nd week of March (if they're not included in the Frozen Four tournament).  The more I think about it, the more it seems the Quads trade was related (in part) to JB knowing something about Hughes coming here sooner rather than later. 

 

But I'll admit, with JB it's hard to tell what his direction is.  He keeps saying build through the draft, stay the course, but he hasn't been going out of his way collecting extra picks either so.....

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Fanuck said:

Ideally yes, 9gms then protect his ELC status, but I can't see JB doing that.

Hughes either turns pro at the end of Michigan's season and plays the reminder of the season with the Canucks - regardless of whether he burns his ELC year or not - or he doesn't turn pro at all this year.  That's just how I see it though, maybe JB has some sort of plan for Hughes we don't know about?  In the past JB has shown he's not afraid to move on from guys either from trades and/or waivers so I don't see him taking extra steps just to protect one possible player from expansion. 

 

Michigan isn't ranked in the top 16 NCAA teams so if I understand their system correctly, Hughes may be eligible to sign as soon as the 2nd week of March (if they're not included in the Frozen Four tournament).  The more I think about it, the more it seems the Quads trade was related (in part) to JB knowing something about Hughes coming here sooner rather than later. 

 

But I'll admit, with JB it's hard to tell what his direction is.  He keeps saying build through the draft, stay the course, but he hasn't been going out of his way collecting extra picks either so.....

Again:

 

15 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Plays even one game and he burns a year off ELC. Has to play 10+ to be elligible for expansion draft though. So ideally we play him 9 or less so he burns the year (makes player happy, gets him some experience so he knows what to expect next year) but keeps him under the threshold for needing an expansion slot.

The ELC isn't the issue. A year is getting burned short of Michigan going on a tear and winning it all and him basically being unavailable to the Canucks (unlikely).

 

The expansion draft is the part that matters. Has to play 9 or less games to not require protection.