[Rumor] Canucks interested in Calvin De Haan

[King Heffy]

1 hour ago, canuck73_3 said:

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

Agreed.  I don't think another year in the AHL to work out the defensive kinks would hurt Rathbone anyway.  Work under the assumption that he's not ready and make room if he earns it.  Regardless, historically our blueline gets a lot of injuries so we will need extra warm bodies.

[NHL97OneTimer]

2 hours ago, fanfor42 said:

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

 

 

Normally I'd say it's crap to have the company own and control the media.  Free media is a necessary part of society.  However, I will depart from that line if it means clearing out the negativity and the toxic nature of Canuck coverage lol.

[IBatch]

8 hours ago, Odd. said:

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

Edler led the entire league in minus one year ...  last year he was touted as "saving the season" as an old vet when Doughty went down.

Edited August 11, 2022 by IBatch

[Dazzle]

11 hours 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.

Yet money is limited and it's not addressing a supposed issue with the defense. People (and the media) have been whining about this defensive core not being good enough, so what does JR/Allvin do?

 

Nothing.

 

I guess the defense isn't really an issue - it was just a low hanging fruit when complaining about the previous regime lol.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Dazzle

[Dazzle]

11 hours 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.

It sounds to me like you're hoping for one of these depth guys to fill in in a top four role. If so, I don't think De Haan is your answer. The biggest complaints so far have been that the defensive core (as a whole) needs reworking. Think of it this way. If a car is in need of repairs, we have to see what is the most broken. You'll probably look at the engine first, and then work your way out.  Right now, picking and choosing the depth is like picking and choosing tires. Sure, it will have an effect on ride quality, but is it REALLY addressing the issue of the car?

[DeNiro]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

It sounds to me like you're hoping for one of these depth guys to fill in in a top four role. If so, I don't think De Haan is your answer. The biggest complaints so far have been that the defensive core (as a whole) needs reworking. Think of it this way. If a car is in need of repairs, we have to see what is the most broken. You'll probably look at the engine first, and then work your way out.  Right now, picking and choosing the depth is like picking and choosing tires. Sure, it will have an effect on ride quality, but is it REALLY addressing the issue of the car?

Yes but the point is we’re not going to fix our D in one offseason therefore we need stop gap players that can at least play an NHL role full time.

 

De Haan may not be a top 4 but he is a lot closer to being able to play that role than a Burroughs, Juulsen, or Rathbone. 
 

He’s a depth guy which every team needs. Not every D signing has to be some big time player that’s gonna fix our defense.

[Baratheon]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

Yet money is limited and it's not addressing a supposed issue with the defense. People (and the media) have been whining about this defensive core not being good enough, so what does JR/Allvin do?

 

Nothing.

 

I guess the defense isn't really an issue - it was just a low hanging fruit when complaining about the previous regime lol.

Lol they even explained ahead of time that they wouldn’t be able to do as much as they’d like with the D this year.  
Not sure why it’s a surprise when they outright warned people this would be the case.

[Ilya Mikheyev]

17 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Yes but the point is we’re not going to fix our D in one offseason therefore we need stop gap players that can at least play an NHL role full time.

 

De Haan may not be a top 4 but he is a lot closer to being able to play that role than a Burroughs, Juulsen, or Rathbone. 
 

He’s a depth guy which every team needs. Not every D signing has to be some big time player that’s gonna fix our defense.

10 hours ago, King Heffy said:

Agreed.  I don't think another year in the AHL to work out the defensive kinks would hurt Rathbone anyway.  Work under the assumption that he's not ready and make room if he earns it.  Regardless, historically our blueline gets a lot of injuries so we will need extra warm bodies.

Yea, I agree with both of you - the more I think about a de Haan deal below 1.125 the more it makes sense, even if he's demanding 2 years as Irf suggests. Right now the defense is still Hughes, Schenn, OEL, Myers, Rathbone, Dermott, Rathbone, Burroughs (??). That's exactly 8 guys. Would still like to see some other movement, but de Haan can line-up on any of those pairings in a dependable way. Essentially Jordie Benn...but better in every way, especially skating and taking smart shots at the net like Tanev.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Ilya Mikheyev

[JM_]

11 minutes ago, Ilya Mikheyev said:

Yea, I agree with both of you - the more I think about a de Haan deal below 1.125 the more it makes sense, even if he's demanding 2 years as Irf suggests. Right now the defense is still Hughes, Schenn, OEL, Myers, Rathbone, Dermott, Rathbone, Burroughs (??). That's exactly 8 guys. Would still like to see some other movement, but de Haan can line-up on any of those pairings in a dependable way. Essentially Jordie Benn...but better in every way, especially skating and taking smart shots at the net like Tanev.

I'd rather see him as a 7/8 guy, maybe we see him in 50% of games depending on the night and maybe we do some load management with Rathbone, and other injury fill in time. 

 

not sure about the two years tho... with the market the way it is I don't see a need to do that.

[Ilya Mikheyev]

Just now, JM_ said:

I'd rather see him as a 7/8 guy, maybe we see him in 50% of games depending on the night and maybe we do some load management with Rathbone, and other injury fill in time. 

 

not sure about the two years tho... with the market the way it is I don't see a need to do that.

I think a 1-year would be fine from the Canucks perspective but Irf just said de Haan's camp was asking for 2 years, so was going off that. If it takes a 2nd year on the contract to keep it under 1.125 then I would be fine with that tbh.

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

Yet money is limited and it's not addressing a supposed issue with the defense. People (and the media) have been whining about this defensive core not being good enough, so what does JR/Allvin do?

 

Nothing.

 

I guess the defense isn't really an issue - it was just a low hanging fruit when complaining about the previous regime lol.

So long as it's under the waiver threshold of $1.1m, and is under our 50 contract limit, we can sign as many guys as we want FYI, with zero effect on our "limited" cap.

 

Nobody is suggesting this fixes our D long term (we still need a long term partner for Hughes and a replacement for Myers) but management has already come out and said they couldn't get as much done there as they'd like. And that was not likely all getting fixed in one offseason anyway, there was always going to likely be some band-aids on that problem.

 

The Miller domino likely needs to fall to address that problem anyway.

 

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, Ilya Mikheyev said:

I think a 1-year would be fine from the Canucks perspective but Irf just said de Haan's camp was asking for 2 years, so was going off that. If it takes a 2nd year on the contract to keep it under 1.125 then I would be fine with that tbh.

Yup, can always waive him next year if he falls off, with zero cap implications.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Ilya Mikheyev said:

I think a 1-year would be fine from the Canucks perspective but Irf just said de Haan's camp was asking for 2 years, so was going off that. If it takes a 2nd year on the contract to keep it under 1.125 then I would be fine with that tbh.

from a big club perspective its no big deal, just waive him down if need be but there's a consequence to the 50 man roster. It might limit moves we can make next year if there's a spot held up by someone who won't be useful if e.g., he's really done and not effective anymore. 

 

De Haan has probably received a few low offers and is just fishing to see if someone offers him 2 years vs 1. 

[ilduce39]

De Haan is my pick of the notable free agents still floating around.  A veteran, defensive minded depth LD who is used to playing up the lineup sounds great.  
 

Upside would see him as a good partner for Myers on the second pair, which could be great value.  

[BPA]

24 minutes ago, JM_ said:

from a big club perspective its no big deal, just waive him down if need be but there's a consequence to the 50 man roster. It might limit moves we can make next year if there's a spot held up by someone who won't be useful if e.g., he's really done and not effective anymore. 

 

De Haan has probably received a few low offers and is just fishing to see if someone offers him 2 years vs 1. 

Other than his CHI years (a bottom team), he seems somewhat decent.  $1M x 2yrs.  Cheap depth.

 

Capfriendly says Canucks have 45/50 contracts.  So there is a bit of room.

 

 

[Ilya Mikheyev]

38 minutes ago, JM_ said:

from a big club perspective its no big deal, just waive him down if need be but there's a consequence to the 50 man roster. It might limit moves we can make next year if there's a spot held up by someone who won't be useful if e.g., he's really done and not effective anymore. 

 

De Haan has probably received a few low offers and is just fishing to see if someone offers him 2 years vs 1. 

yea, that's why I limited the amount at a buriable amount, and I agree, he's likely holding out for a 2 year - if that puts the Canucks ahead I wouldn't  be against it. Not a super exciting signing but not bad depth either.

[Boudrias]

19 minutes ago, Ilya Mikheyev said:

yea, that's why I limited the amount at a buriable amount, and I agree, he's likely holding out for a 2 year - if that puts the Canucks ahead I wouldn't  be against it. Not a super exciting signing but not bad depth either.

The subterfuge involved involved in player movement must be huge. Many millions of $'s involved. I expect NHL clubs hire some top people to help them craft a strategy. De Hann could easily be a management effort to tell those they have been talking trade too that in fact the Canucks might stand pat and wait for their deal to crystalize. It throws some weight back on other teams who want Miller or some other player they have been talking to PA about.  

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

38 minutes ago, BPA said:

Other than his CHI years (a bottom team), he seems somewhat decent.  $1M x 2yrs.  Cheap depth.

 

Capfriendly says Canucks have 45/50 contracts.  So there is a bit of room.

 

 

Even his Chicago seasons, within the context of those poor teams, were generally positive, statistically speaking.

 

His offensive production, never really a standout of his game, has dried up in recent years. But his defensive stats have remained quite strong, offering around 3 goals above replacement on 5v5 defensive GAR and xGAR.

 

Similarly, his relative rates, both offensively and defensively, have mostly been positive, in areas like Corsi/Fenwick/shots, scoring chances, expected goals, etc.

And his 146 hits last season (with only 81 hits taken) would have placed him second, after Schenn, on the Canucks defence.

 

Not a bad overall profile, especially for a guy who plays both sides, can easily eat 15-20 unsheltered minutes a night, be trusted with fairly high defensive zone starts, and regular PK minutes. 

[Bure_Pavel]

Would prefer Michael Stone, dont really need more depth LDs unless they cool being in Abby. 

[Gawdzukes]

11 hours ago, NHL97OneTimer said:

Normally I'd say it's crap to have the company own and control the media.  Free media is a necessary part of society.  However, I will depart from that line if it means clearing out the negativity and the toxic nature of Canuck coverage lol.

Yeah. I've never seen a worse sports media. At the same time you want to be critical generally you're supposed to foster excitement and create a bond with city and team. In Vancouver... nope.