[Rumor] Canucks interested in Calvin De Haan

[LegionOfDoom]

25 minutes ago, grandmaster said:

Ya but Kane at least provided 92 points whereas this guy provided just 8.

That could also work against your argument, but like cmon you actually looking at +/-? Notice how well it looked when he played on good teams? Hmmmmm 

[Phil_314]

27 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Have to wonder...since they haven't been able to fix the RD, and there's been talk all summer about shifting OEL to the right, I wonder if this is more about getting a solid D partner to cover for Myers...

 

Hughes, OEL

DeHaan, Myers

Rathbone/Dermott, Schenn

 

Not a horrible D and probably more cohesive pairings.

Agreed (Hughes probably plays on the right, but I digress).  DeHaan's only 30 and he could be a defensive partner for Myers (or he could bump over to the right side, side DeHaan does play on both sides) and I don't think there's anything wrong with adding another versatile possible RD to Schenn/ Myers/ Dermott/ Poolman/ Burroughs.

[grandmaster]

52 minutes ago, LegionOfDoom said:

That could also work against your argument, but like cmon you actually looking at +/-? Notice how well it looked when he played on good teams? Hmmmmm 

Kane’s primary focus is offence and achieved that with his 92 points. DeHaan’s primary focus is to prevent goals and he failed miserably at that.
 

The plus minus is a good stat for the position one plays in conjunction whether he provides any offence. It is also a telling tale for trends (this is his second season in a row with a bad minus stat). DeHaan has very weak offensive ability and doesn’t do too well in what he is primarily there to do (preventing goals).
 

Your comparison with Kane makes no sense and his stats from previous teams matter less as players can digress, follow his most recent trend.

Edited August 11, 2022 by grandmaster

[Chris12345]

1 hour ago, Devron said:

Meh we have enough depth guys. I want someone who can play defence regularly 

Exactly. Another depth guy when the Canucks have 6 at least.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, grandmaster said:

Kane’s primary focus is offence and achieved that with his 92 points. DeHaan’s primary focus is to prevent goals and he failed miserably at that.
 

The plus minus is a good stat for the position one plays in conjunction whether he provides any offence. It is also a telling tale for trends (this is his second season in a row with a bad minus stat). DeHaan has very weak offensive ability and doesn’t do too well in what he is primarily there to do (preventing goals).
 

Your comparison with Kane makes no sense. 

 

dunno, +/- is also a lot about goaltending. Not much De Haan can do if Malcolm Subban or some other sieve is in net. 

[Odd.]

4 minutes ago, grandmaster said:

Kane’s primary focus is offence and achieved that with his 92 points. DeHaan’s primary focus is to prevent goals and he failed miserably at that.
 

The plus minus is a good stat for the position one plays in conjunction whether he provides any offence. It is also a telling tale for trends (this is his second season in a row with a bad minus stat). DeHaan has very weak offensive ability and doesn’t do too well in what he is primarily there to do (preventing goals).
 

Your comparison with Kane makes no sense and his stats from previous teams matter less as players can digress, follow his most recent trend.

This, not sure why Kane is being compared. De Haan came in to be defensive defenseman. His defensive numbers were poor.

[NHL97OneTimer]

Feels like grasping at straws.  I'd rather have less "options" and put the money towards stronger, more versatile players.

 

The more I think of the history of our D, the more I think the Canucks should spend extra money on better D coaching in the minors.  Finding or buying the best talent is difficult and crippling to a team's cap.  Creating overachievers as a parallel strategy would seem to be the more cost effective, enduring stategy.

[DeNiro]

2 minutes ago, NHL97OneTimer said:

Feels like grasping at straws.  I'd rather have less "options" and put the money towards stronger, more versatile players.

 

The more I think of the history of our D, the more I think the Canucks should spend extra money on better D coaching in the minors.  Finding or buying the best talent is difficult and crippling to a team's cap.  Creating overachievers as a parallel strategy would seem to be the more cost effective, enduring stategy.

It’s not about money it’s about upgrading our depth. If we sign him it will be around the 1 million dollar mark which can be buried in the minors.

 

This team badly needs depth so I’m all for signing guys like De Haan and Stralman. These are legit NHL defenseman that can fill in if injuries hit. If we’re relying on guys like Burroughs or Juulsen to do that for long stretches we’re in trouble.

[DeNiro]

9 minutes ago, Chris12345 said:

Exactly. Another depth guy when the Canucks have 6 at least.

But he’s an upgrade over Burroughs, Juulsen, and maybe even Poolman.

 

Upgrading depth is not a bad move and has nothing to do with our need for improving our top 6.

[grandmaster]

4 minutes ago, NHL97OneTimer said:

Feels like grasping at straws.  I'd rather have less "options" and put the money towards stronger, more versatile players.

 

The more I think of the history of our D, the more I think the Canucks should spend extra money on better D coaching in the minors.  Finding or buying the best talent is difficult and crippling to a team's cap.  Creating overachievers as a parallel strategy would seem to be the more cost effective, enduring stategy.

How about also drafting some defencemen? We have nothing for prospects. Rathbone should be a regular but other than him, we have an extreme shortage in that position.

[Crabcakes]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

 

Have to wonder...since they haven't been able to fix the RD, and there's been talk all summer about shifting OEL to the right, I wonder if this is more about getting a solid D partner to cover for Myers...

 

Hughes, OEL

DeHaan, Myers

Rathbone/Dermott, Schenn

 

Not a horrible D and probably more cohesive pairings.

 

Ya, assuming DeHaan is like a left handed version of Schenn and they plan on moving either OEL or Hughes to the right side, this idea actually makes some logical sense for the short term until they can find a legitimate top 4 RHD

 

There are worse band-aids out there

 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Crabcakes

[canuck73_3]

1 hour ago, Ilya Mikheyev said:

Not against it as a signing to play with Rathbone, or as a # 7/8 guy if that's what shakes out

I don’t believe in gifting him the spot, sign De Haan and if Rathbone out competes him for the spot he gets it. 

[fanfor42]

Lol made up junk.  There is no quote from anyone confirming interest.  Lousy Vancouver nearly unemployed media making up a crap story.

 

 

[guntrix]

Pretty sure Gaffar just randomly picked an AHL/NHL tweener to have something to talk about on the show, knowing people wouldn't make much of it either way. Non story really.

Edited August 11, 2022 by guntrix

[24K PureCool]

Below $1mil fir a year? Sure, why not?

[cripplereh]

Interesting if he can keep him around 1 mill go for it one,two year deal two way

[Canuck Surfer]

46 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

It’s not about money it’s about upgrading our depth. If we sign him it will be around the 1 million dollar mark which can be buried in the minors.

 

This team badly needs depth so I’m all for signing guys like De Haan and Stralman. These are legit NHL defenseman that can fill in if injuries hit. If we’re relying on guys like Burroughs or Juulsen to do that for long stretches we’re in trouble.

I agree.

 

Prefer Strallman? He's a righty and has speed in spite of a ripe old age. It does not mean he wants to come here which is part of the equation.

 

De Haan is bigger, and serviceable but a lefty.  Does play both sides.  @Crabcakes mentioned comparable to Schenn.  I think he's better?  But does not bring the same rugged nature to the net front, scrums or corners.

[RWJC]

3 hours ago, Ilya Mikheyev said:

I agree, de Haan is boring but dependable in his own end - but I thought Burroughs played pretty well in the dzone last year, and provided a nice physical presence. Kinda surprised they'd go for such a similar player, but maybe they have more faith in his right sided play.

Agreed. Need to give Burroughs more TOI and measure his improvement. Might sound crazy but I’d actually really like to see him paired with QH for a few games to suss out potential chemistry.

[Chris12345]

1 hour ago, DeNiro said:

But he’s an upgrade over Burroughs, Juulsen, and maybe even Poolman.

 

Upgrading depth is not a bad move and has nothing to do with our need for improving our top 6.

Totally agree but I won't get excited until there's an NHL calibre top 4.

 

[Provost]

Since we generally go through anywhere from 11-13 D per year… another NHL calibre guy as a 7/8 seems like a reparable course of action if the price is right.  This is the kind of guy you can flip for. 3rd round pick at the deadline too.