Quinn Hughes + for Colton Parayko + (extention re-signed) (proposal)

[J.I.A.H.N]

47 minutes ago, CaptKirk888 said:

 

Thanks for reading my posts! 

[kloubek]

Parayko had the worst season in his career and was playing with a back injury. Is that the kind of risk we want to take? He's also a UFA by season's end, and although I understand this is an acquire-with-extension scenario, I don't know why we wouldn't just try to convince him to sign next season for free. By then, he will show whether he has recovered from his back or not. Even despite all that, I'm not sure he is quite the presence he used to be... just by the eye test. (His stats look ok year over year, last year being a small exception and with reasons). 

 

As for Quinn himself - there is no doubt in my mind he is the best d-man we've ever had. No, his skill doesn't negate the fact he will always be undersized. But his offensive ability is undeniable, and I think we need that true scoring ability from back there. Contrary to what we saw last season and popular opinion, I don't even think Quinn is that bad defensively. He just misses having a Tanev-like presence back there to cover for him while he pinches, and either way still needs to learn where to take chances and where to defend a bit better. I am confident that Hughes is going to show his true worth to his detractors this season.

Honestly, the only scenario I want to see if we DID move Hughes is a massive overpayment from NJ to have their trifecta of Hugheses. Otherwise, I feel we should be thrilled we have the most offensively gifted D-man this team has ever seen.

Edited August 16, 2021 by kloubek

[N4ZZY]

20 hours ago, Alflives said:

Parayko is coming off back surgery, right?  Why in any world would we trade our phenom?  We want to win a Cup, and that ain’t happening if we trade the guy who will lead the celebration parade.  

I think it's questionable whether Hughes will be that defenseman that can play at both ends of the ice really well. He's great offensively, but can his defensive play be equal to that of his offensive play? If the answer is yes, then yeah, by all accounts he'll be leading our Cup parade. If not, then we're stuck with a one dimensional offensively gifted defenseman. 

 

[JM_]

34 minutes ago, N4ZZY said:

I think it's questionable whether Hughes will be that defenseman that can play at both ends of the ice really well. He's great offensively, but can his defensive play be equal to that of his offensive play? If the answer is yes, then yeah, by all accounts he'll be leading our Cup parade. If not, then we're stuck with a one dimensional offensively gifted defenseman. 

 

his skating is too good for him to be one-dimensional defensively. But he'll never be a physical player like a Hedman or even that whiney diver Nurse. 

 

That doesn't mean he can't be effective in breaking up plays or chasing down pucks, he just wont scare anyone when he's doing it. He'll also only need to do that about 30% of his time on the ice. 

[NMHockey]

On 8/15/2021 at 4:37 PM, janisahockeynut said:

Let's face it, we keep missing the window because we just never have all the pieces. There is no doubt that Quinn Hughes is a gifted Offensive hockey player, probably one of the best defenseman we have ever had. But one could argue that players like Matthais Ohlund, Dave Babych, Jurki Lumme, Sami Salo, Doug Lidster, Paul Reinhart, Rick Lanz, Dale Tallon, Ed Jovanovski, Kevin Bieska, Dan Hamhuis, Christain Ehrhoff, and Alex Edler brought attributes equally as important to the games as Quinn Hughes does.

 

Will Quinn Hughes end up our all-time points leader, most probably yes, but will he be able to clean up his defensive woes? IMO, not to the extent that he will be a net positive contributor. 

You can not teach size, is what most learned hockey people will say. That includes small under-size dmen, who will have to be sheltered 5 on 5.

 

If, the Canucks intend on competing now, and intend on being realistic contenders now, while players like Horvat and Miller are under contract, then we will need to reduce our negative goal differential. This is where, this trade proposals POV comes from. Yes, everyone loves Huggy, but hear me out.

 

Now, the basics of the trade are Hughes for Parayko, but the values are off, mostly because of Hughes age compared to Parayko's age, and the fact that Parayko is in his last year of his current contract. IMO, Vancouver is on the up swing, where ST. Louis is on the down turn.

 

The remaining pieces are included to even out the trade and cap hits.

 

Hughes and Poolman

 

for

 

Parayko* and StL 2022-1st

 

Parayko agrees to an extension with Vancouver of 7 years @ 8.00 million, which brings him to the age of 35

 

Hughes agrees to a new contract of 3 years at 7.50 million.

 

Canucks new defense is......................

 

Rathbone and Parayko

OEL and Hamonic

Juolevi and Myers

Hunt and Schenn

 

Just for $hits and giggles.......flame away!

 

 

 

 

The entire Canucks hockey-ops targeted Poolman as did half the league… we just signed him. He’s healthier and cheaper than Parayko and Q.Hughes alone is worth Parayko and a 1st… Try this or just no more of your constantly ridiculous proposals.

 

Blues: D Quinn Hughes

           D Madison Bowey

(Conditional) 3rd Round Draft Pick 2024

 

Canucks: D Justin Faulk

                D Jake Walman 

                F Nikita Alexandrov 

                1st Round Draft Pick 2024

                2nd Round Draft Pick 2023

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 hour ago, ZH96 said:

The entire Canucks hockey-ops targeted Poolman as did half the league… we just signed him. He’s healthier and cheaper than Parayko and Q.Hughes alone is worth Parayko and a 1st… Try this or just no more of your constantly ridiculous proposals.

 

Blues: D Quinn Hughes

           D Madison Bowey

(Conditional) 3rd Round Draft Pick 2024

 

Canucks: D Justin Faulk

                D Jake Walman 

                F Nikita Alexandrov 

                1st Round Draft Pick 2024

                2nd Round Draft Pick 2023

So you think Poolman is a top guy do you?

[NMHockey]

11 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

So you think Poolman is a top guy do you?

I never called him a “top-guy” but yes I think a 6’2, 200 Lb right hand D that has shutdown aggression, decent feet for a big man, some vision, is only 28, has never had any serious injuries, had 2 points in 8 games in the recent playoffs while logging 21 minutes/game, and put up 16 points in 57 games only one year ago… is pretty valuable. You tell me why 13 other teams were after him before we gave him the $2.5 Mil he wanted? Benning even went as far as to say that his entire scouting staff pushed him to sign him and they all compare him to Chris Tanev and he essentially replaces that gaping hole loss of Tanev.

[J.I.A.H.N]

13 minutes ago, ZH96 said:

I never called him a “top-guy” but yes I think a 6’2, 200 Lb right hand D that has shutdown aggression, decent feet for a big man, some vision, is only 28, has never had any serious injuries, had 2 points in 8 games in the recent playoffs while logging 21 minutes/game, and put up 16 points in 57 games only one year ago… is pretty valuable. You tell me why 13 other teams were after him before we gave him the $2.5 Mil he wanted? Benning even went as far as to say that his entire scouting staff pushed him to sign him and they all compare him to Chris Tanev and he essentially replaces that gaping hole loss of Tanev.

He was cheap and we out bid everyone else. 

 

But to make it perfectly clear 12 other teams did not think he was worth 2.5 million

 

For what he is, I actually like him, but don't expect a top 4 Dman

[NMHockey]

38 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

He was cheap and we out bid everyone else. 

 

But to make it perfectly clear 12 other teams did not think he was worth 2.5 million

 

For what he is, I actually like him, but don't expect a top 4 Dman

Yeah that’s how paying for re-signing players or UFAs works… you have to out bid. When it comes to Free Agency especially. Every single signing that isn’t league minimum is usually an overpayment. 13-14* other teams did not sign him before we did. And keep saying that a RHD that’s shown he’ll log over 20 minutes, get 16 points, hit and play in the hard areas, and is not even in his prime, is not a top 4 D-man. Case dismissed.

[mll]

8 minutes ago, ZH96 said:

Yeah that’s how paying for re-signing players or UFAs works… you have to out bid. When it comes to Free Agency especially. Every single signing that isn’t league minimum is usually an overpayment. 13-14* other teams did not sign him before we did. And keep saying that a RHD that’s shown he’ll log over 20 minutes, get 16 points, hit and play in the hard areas, and is not even in his prime, is not a top 4 D-man. Case dismissed.

Beat writer Murat Ates in his season review for The Athletic (which was in June well before free agency) graded him a C+.  He calls him an exceptional 3rd pairing D but feels he is over his head playing against top competition.

 

It's not like Winnipeg had a lot of options for those minutes. 

 

Edited August 17, 2021 by mll

[NMHockey]

Just now, mll said:

Beat writer Murat Ates in his season review for The Athletic (which was in June well before free agency) graded him a C+.  He calls him an exceptional 3rd pairing D but feels he is over his head in a top pairing role.

 

Chris Tanev was pretty much over his head in a top pairing role if you look at his points output and injuries. But everyone called him a “top D-man loss” when he signed with the Flames. And I’m saying T. Poolman is a top four D-man. Not a number one pairing Brian Rafalski.. And I wouldn’t listen to story stirring people from the Athletic that probably don’t know anything about the pro hockey business numbers and factors and/or have never played hockey at even a Junior C level.

[IBatch]

On 8/16/2021 at 2:12 AM, Patel Bure said:

Pass.
 

Throwing Rathbone to the wolves and placing him on the first pairing right from the get go is a sure fire way of ruining a perfectly good prospect.   

5 x 5 QHs wasn't our first pairing last year, that was Edler and Schmidt...Myers  played harder minutes too.   There is a reason QHs hasn't played a minute of PK (although i wouldn't mind seeing what he could do on a forward spot).   He is incredible - but he's not first pairing 5 x 5 yet either, sure maybe the other coaches throw out their best against them but there is a reason for that too.  QHs minus did have a lot to do with us being behind a goal and both him and Myers being the best chance to catch up and win.   It worked some games, but often backfired too.  

 

Hopefully with four guys who are very good at transitioning the puck, two stay at home types and OJ as a another possible safe D (sure looked good before covid),  this year will be a lot different.    Our forward group was also upgraded on the other side of the puck which should help too. 

[IBatch]

8 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

He was cheap and we out bid everyone else. 

 

But to make it perfectly clear 12 other teams did not think he was worth 2.5 million

 

For what he is, I actually like him, but don't expect a top 4 Dman

No doubt.  He's Benn 2.0 for us just over his prime.   Not a bad signing given he's a RHD, and we needed one more badly ... hopefully he will get a chance to show he can play decent second pairing minutes when the chance arises.   If he ends up with QHs, a possibility, it will say a lot about how the coaching staff view QHs 5 x 5 play won't it? 

 

Also on that note - i think the 5 x 5  minutes will be evenly distributed.   This year TG has another, bigger and more experienced former Norris candidate to utilize when we are behind ... it should help QHs overall game, and give him more time to develop.   Needs to add 20lbs of muscle.   

 

Edit:  Also Alf is right in saying the guy is so young and look at all he's achieved so far.    I'm hoping we sign both EP and QHs to a medium-long deal,  similar to Horvats - six years.   Would give us 6 years to try and win with them and help keep the cap down enough to provide quality support during that time.   We can't have too many expensive guys, and find the value is often found in the 4-6 range.   Took a big gamble on Garland.   His biggest thing missing on his resume is 82 game seasons.   Could be St. Louis - lite, 5'8" and 180lbs is right where Ronning was build wise (5'7" 175), built very well for his size and has a massive chip on his shoulder for getting passed his entire career from reading up on him.   Little guys that can are inspirational to all.   Hope Gadj makes it .... we need that in our lineup for these guys as well. 

Edited August 17, 2021 by IBatch

[-DLC-]

7 hours ago, ZH96 said:

Chris Tanev was pretty much over his head in a top pairing role if you look at his points output and injuries. But everyone called him a “top D-man loss” when he signed with the Flames. And I’m saying T. Poolman is a top four D-man. Not a number one pairing Brian Rafalski.. And I wouldn’t listen to story stirring people from the Athletic that probably don’t know anything about the pro hockey business numbers and factors and/or have never played hockey at even a Junior C level.

I don't think you really measure "top pairing d men" by points or injuries.  If anything, a d man acquiring points can come at the expense of being solid defensively as they jump into the play and can put themselves out of position by being too eager to score (vs defend).  It can be risky if not adequately covered by others.

 

Chris Tanev is a top d men by many standards (except that he is "hard worn" and aging).   If he stays healthy, he's a huge asset.

[NMHockey]

1 hour ago, -DLC- said:

I don't think you really measure "top pairing d men" by points or injuries.  If anything, a d man acquiring points can come at the expense of being solid defensively as they jump into the play and can put themselves out of position by being too eager to score (vs defend).  It can be risky if not adequately covered by others.

 

Chris Tanev is a top d men by many standards (except that he is "hard worn" and aging).   If he stays healthy, he's a huge asset.

I’m saying top D-men need to either out-score their mistakes so no one notices or cares       (Ie. Dougie Hamilton) or be so solid all over the ice and average at least 25-30 points at the same time to be considered “top”             (Ie. MacKenzie Weegar). Staying healthy is pretty important for any player. So yeah points and injuries matter aside from details within skill-sets like inside and outside edge work, stride, mobility, headiness, IQ, durability. And sorry but our team and fanbase loves to have “fan favourites” and “more important to the team than his trade value will show” players constantly and it’s partly why we’ve never won a cup. We over-play players and make them out to be something their not and wear them out until they have no value or walk as UFAs. It’s a testament to why Benning is so focused on building this team so specifically and with great depth and with young players with high ceilings. Chris Tanev was not, is not, and never will be a top D-man. He’s never played 82 games and only played 70 once, he’s hit exactly 20 points only twice, he couldn’t get point shots through, and when he wasn’t on the PK or blocking shots, he got walked and stumbled more than people realize. We played him like he was our

Alex Pietrangelo, Shea Weber, Drew Doughty, etc. which is like I said partly why we’ve never won a cup. 

[-DLC-]

10 minutes ago, ZH96 said:

I’m saying top D-men need to either out-score their mistakes so no one notices or cares       (Ie. Dougie Hamilton) or be so solid all over the ice and average at least 25-30 points at the same time to be considered “top”             (Ie. MacKenzie Weegar). Staying healthy is pretty important for any player. So yeah points and injuries matter aside from details within skill-sets like inside and outside edge work, stride, mobility, headiness, IQ, durability. And sorry but our team and fanbase loves to have “fan favourites” and “more important to the team than his trade value will show” players constantly and it’s partly why we’ve never won a cup. We over-play players and make them out to be something their not and wear them out until they have no value or walk as UFAs. It’s a testament to why Benning is so focused on building this team so specifically and with great depth and with young players with high ceilings. Chris Tanev was not, is not, and never will be a top D-man. He’s never played 82 games and only played 70 once, he’s hit exactly 20 points only twice, he couldn’t get point shots through, and when he wasn’t on the PK or blocking shots, he got walked and stumbled more than people realize. We played him like he was our

Alex Pietrangelo, Shea Weber, Drew Doughty, etc. which is like I said partly why we’ve never won a cup. 

He's been a minus player....ONCE...in his career so far.  I think that matters as much as (more than) "inside/outside edge work, stride, mobility".  

Also, he's pretty resilient/tough despite injuries:  he played through broken ribs and a torn pectoral muscle to play in every game in 2020-21.

 

It's not just Vancouver...Calgary's rating of Tanev is pretty high.

 

Quote

During the 2020-21 season, Tanev played the most minutes against Edmonton Oilers’ stars Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl and he held them to a 37.9 and 33.7 xGF% and a 48.3 and 47.5 Corsi for percentage (CF%), respectively; away from Tanev, the Oilers’ forwards numbers rose to a 59 and 52 xGF% and a 55.2 and 50.9 CF%. In 10 games, McDavid and Draisaitl had a combined seven scoring chances. Playing with Hanifin, the pair gave McDavid his biggest headache as he posted his worst xGF% numbers against the Flames’ blueliners of 37 xGF%. That was amongst the Scotia North Division players that McDavid played more than 50 minutes against.

 

[NMHockey]

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

No doubt.  He's Benn 2.0 for us just over his prime.   Not a bad signing given he's a RHD, and we needed one more badly ... hopefully he will get a chance to show he can play decent second pairing minutes when the chance arises.   If he ends up with QHs, a possibility, it will say a lot about how the coaching staff view QHs 5 x 5 play won't it? 

 

Also on that note - i think the 5 x 5  minutes will be evenly distributed.   This year TG has another, bigger and more experienced former Norris candidate to utilize when we are behind ... it should help QHs overall game, and give him more time to develop.   Needs to add 20lbs of muscle.   

 

Edit:  Also Alf is right in saying the guy is so young and look at all he's achieved so far.    I'm hoping we sign both EP and QHs to a medium-long deal,  similar to Horvats - six years.   Would give us 6 years to try and win with them and help keep the cap down enough to provide quality support during that time.   We can't have too many expensive guys, and find the value is often found in the 4-6 range.   Took a big gamble on Garland.   His biggest thing missing on his resume is 82 game seasons.   Could be St. Louis - lite, 5'8" and 180lbs is right where Ronning was build wise (5'7" 175), built very well for his size and has a massive chip on his shoulder for getting passed his entire career from reading up on him.   Little guys that can are inspirational to all.   Hope Gadj makes it .... we need that in our lineup for these guys as well. 

We signed Jordie Benn a month before he turned 32… We signed Poolman a month after he turned 28.. Poolman is about to be able to take advantage of his prime. Like I said half the league wanted him and we signed him first. Every UFA in Free Agency outside of being given league minimum, is overpaid. Poolman has shown he can post 16 points in 57 games, log over 20 minutes, be aggressive, and move his feet decently for a big guy. Shuffle him between the second and third pairing and don’t overplay him like C.Tanev and he’ll be playing like his old self.

[NMHockey]

5 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

He's been a minus player....ONCE...in his career so far.  I think that matters as much as (more than) "inside/outside edge work, stride, mobility".  

Also, he's pretty resilient/tough despite injuries:  he played through broken ribs and a torn pectoral muscle to play in every game in 2020-21.

Yeah he’s tough and was a little underrated that’s great. But playing through broken bones doesn’t mean you’re a top player it means you’re a good leader and have work ethic… and if you only go off of players plus/minus which is the most overlooked, overrated, overhyped stat, and don’t look at details within a players game and the potential it can reveal (like edge work, stride, mobility, durability, IQ, puck control, stick speed) than you’re not really understanding hockey. Especially if you think playing through injuries makes someone a top caliber player.

[-DLC-]

14 minutes ago, ZH96 said:

Yeah he’s tough and was a little underrated that’s great. But playing through broken bones doesn’t mean you’re a top player it means you’re a good leader and have work ethic… and if you only go off of players plus/minus which is the most overlooked, overrated, overhyped stat, and don’t look at details within a players game and the potential it can reveal (like edge work, stride, mobility, durability, IQ, puck control, stick speed) than you’re not really understanding hockey. Especially if you think playing through injuries makes someone a top caliber player.

So wait...the things YOU use to say he's "not" are the measuring sticks but when I counter them they're invalid?

 

I understand hockey well enough.  You threw out:

Quote

 if you look at his points output and injuries.

and I was simply responding to your yardsticks.

If +/- don't matter and playing a tough game despite injuries don't matter, I'm not sure the stuff you list matters either.  Because, in the end, execution only matters if results are produced and he was able to be effective against some of the league's best players (see "McDavid"). 

+/- is brought in because you list "lack of scoring/points" but d men have to be responsible defensively, first and foremost.  A scoring touch only matters if it doesn't pull you away from that.  We're seeing how Quinn needs a bit more balance there - because a d man's job is to...defend and scoring shouldn't be at the expense of that.

I remember when KB spent a summer working on his timing of jumping in to the play.  That you can't simply go for the puck and try to score if it means no one's covering for you and the puck is in too deep.  That he had to make quick assessments before just "going for it".  Good hockey IQ stuff that sometimes players work on to develop.

 

Tanev as a pretty solid hockey IQ in my opinion....and his puck control was just fine, too.   He was pretty calm/composed when pressured and could move the puck out of our end without panic.  We could rely on him to make good decisions.

Anyhow, I saw him play live/up close and personal long enough to know that he was pretty smooth and effective out there.  

 

[-DLC-]

20 hours ago, N4ZZY said:

I think it's questionable whether Hughes will be that defenseman that can play at both ends of the ice really well. He's great offensively, but can his defensive play be equal to that of his offensive play? If the answer is yes, then yeah, by all accounts he'll be leading our Cup parade. If not, then we're stuck with a one dimensional offensively gifted defenseman. 

 

I have confidence in this because of his agility and ability to control the puck.  Without that, I'd be very worried but he can defend by playing keep away as others, with more size and strength, use brute force.  He's pretty crafty with the puck and can use stick work and positioning to make up for lack of size and strength.  

 

Thing is, guys hungry for goals often are more focused there and so making sure he's "aware" of his defensive responsibilities at all times should be in the forefront.  The scoring touch is great but we have to score more goals than they do, so preventing goals against is equally important.  More important.

I have tons of faith in Quinn...his comfort level and love of the game (that is obvious through 3 boys in the same family all in the NHL) will propel him.  It's in his blood and everything else can be taught along the way.