Lazurus Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, bree2 said: IMO Hughes is a tremendous trade asset, better two young healty "Edler's" or "Ohlunds" than one Hughes but if not them, then Dahlen and Sergachev. The Canucks have the assets to get them. 2 hours ago, bree2 said: Okay then Hughes is not a great trade asset 1 hour ago, aGENT said: Nobody is suggesting Hughes is playing well, particularly in his own end. But you don't trade a 20 year old phenom, going through a tough patch, in is sophomore season. That's dumb. The team has 55 goals against in 14 games Hughes has been on the ice for 27 of those That does not show up as a defenceman phenom. Examples of defence phenoms Orr Coffey Linstrom Doughty Neidimeyer Bourque Potvin Chelios Hedman Keith The common thing with them was they never were the worst defensively on their teams, any teams. Hughes is so bad defensively I am thinking they should play Juloevi instead and I don't think he is a better than a #7 dman, and neither does the team. They might score a goal or two less but hopefully they stop 3 of 4 against. Addition by subtraction Edited February 5, 2021 by Lazurus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNucks1 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 lol are people seriously considering hughes as a trade asset? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post J-23 Posted February 5, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted February 5, 2021 11 hours ago, Lazurus said: I wonder if some posters really understand just how bad Hughes is defensively? That plus minus number shows something alarming. Hughes is on the ice for 24 goals against. That is pretty much half the total goals against and he only plays around 18 min a game.. 18 minutes is less than 1/3 of the game and the opposition is lighting it up while he is on the ice. The opposition scores more than is scored on in that 1/3 of the game. IMO Hughes is a tremendous trade asset, better two young healty "Edler's" or "Ohlunds" than one Hughes but if not them, then Dahlen and Sergachev. The Canucks have the assets to get them. This is the result of not having a minus button. 1 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRAZY_4_NAZZY Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 I feel Hughes is doing way too much on his own. Trying to pick up Tanev's defensive assignments while still creating offense. He needs to dumb it down and just keep it simple with making good outlet passes and skating. I can see how burnt out he is already because he is making some uncharacteristic plays such as forcing passes and being too aggressive in defensive and offensive pinches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazurus Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 40 minutes ago, J-23 said: This is the result of not having a minus button. That can't be important can it? If Jake was on the ice for half the goals against would it make it a difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 59 minutes ago, TNucks1 said: lol are people seriously considering hughes as a trade asset? 'People' might be generous. A few fruit loops is probably more accurate. Sometimes how little the very vocal minority of this fan base actually knows about hockey is painfully, laughably obvious 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNucks1 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 Covid making people go 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timråfan Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 Just make him a winger instead so he can do what he's best at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 It's honestly hilarious how reactionary some people can be. We have a potentially future Norris-calibre defenseman on our hands and people are talking about trading him because his defense isn't great when he's 21 years old. 1 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grape Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 A lot of his defense is effort and focus related. He's never been great at those things and can easily lose track of his man, but that's easily correctable and hopefully it's corrected quickly as adversity hits. With that being said, he was a good defender in college and at the start of last year as well because of his elite gap control ability and his ability to skate with people. The gap control is still there, but not being as fast as he used to be, he's having a hard time keeping up with faster guys, which for a 5'10 guy, should not happen. I really think extra focus and speed will absolve so many defensive and offensive issues and I'm interested to see how/if Quinn can return to becoming a more dynamic skater to go along with his elite agility which we all know he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-23 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 7 hours ago, Lazurus said: That can't be important can it? If Jake was on the ice for half the goals against would it make it a difference? You guys love bringing Jake into everything on these forums. Either way Jake is in his 6th NHL season he’s had more than enough time to prove himself. Also Jake has never had or even been close to the offensive upside Quinn has shown. Your post might be one of the worst takes I’ve ever seen on here. You want to trade a defencemen in only his second year, who’s leading the league in points for defencemen, putting up numbers and records on the same level as hall of fames and legends, all because he’s having a slump. By the way every single one of our defencemen look like crap, especially the veterans. With your logic we would probably be trading half our stars and defencemen. Boeser and a couple of other Canucks are right behind Hughes in be being on the ice for goals. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 Any player, not signed to a NMC or NTC is a tradeable asset Just depends on the return. Hughes is untradeable? b.s. . I'd say if you were the Canuck G.M. you take these deals.: Hughes for Makar and Mackinnon Hughes for Makar and a first Hughes for Hedman, a first and a second. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kootenay Gold Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 53 minutes ago, gurn said: Any player, not signed to a NMC or NTC is a tradeable asset Just depends on the return. Hughes is untradeable? b.s. . I'd say if you were the Canuck G.M. you take these deals.: Hughes for Makar and Mackinnon Hughes for Makar and a first Hughes for Hedman, a first and a second. You are correct in what you stated. Wayne Gretzky was proof of that. It all depends on what you receive in return for the (asset/commodity/player) you are trading. Call it what you will but players are, IMO, commodities that may be traded when their value is high for a different commodity or group of commodities whose value is likely to increase over time. Business Investing 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podzilla Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 What happened to his “generational skating ability” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNucks1 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 2 hours ago, gurn said: Any player, not signed to a NMC or NTC is a tradeable asset Just depends on the return. Hughes is untradeable? b.s. . I'd say if you were the Canuck G.M. you take these deals.: Hughes for Makar and Mackinnon Hughes for Makar and a first Hughes for Hedman, a first and a second. obviously, but those wouldnt happen lol, and there is literally no reason to trade him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 2 hours ago, gurn said: Any player, not signed to a NMC or NTC is a tradeable asset Just depends on the return. Hughes is untradeable? b.s. . I'd say if you were the Canuck G.M. you take these deals.: Hughes for Makar and Mackinnon Hughes for Makar and a first Hughes for Hedman, a first and a second. Provorov, Farabee and a first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 5 minutes ago, TNucks1 said: obviously, but those wouldnt happen lol, and there is literally no reason to trade him. There is always a reason to trade a player. If it makes your team better you do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 14 hours ago, TNucks1 said: lol are people seriously considering hughes as a trade asset? Some are a few fries short of a happy meal? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNucks1 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 37 minutes ago, gurn said: There is always a reason to trade a player. If it makes your team better you do it. yeah, you keep posting the obvious, but why would we trade him?, anyone is tradable.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyndall2 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 Hughes is not a 'defense' man. He is too light and gets knocked off his feet (skates) and the puck with ease by the opposing forecheckers. Like Petey the are strong skaters but easily get knocked off balance trying to do too much. Like many of said dumb down the game and wait for your breaks. Yes, if the right deal came along that would overall better the team, I would trade him. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now