Trade rumours & armchair pipe dreams 18-19 Sponsored by SKYO

[Blob Mckenzie]

Hey Blob, looks like we were both writing at the same time. Agree with what you said. Cheers

Great minds think alike Linc

[SKYO]

What a crock of shit. You ask the guy a few weeks before the deadline not a couple of days before and then put pressure on him. You have a conversation with the guy and ask him if he would waive and if so where.

If he says no, leave it alone. You don’t try and bully the guy out mid season. Asking a question wouldn’t poison any relationship or cause the guy to fall apart and be in “a worried situation”. I never said to ask him early in the year, just a couple weeks earlier than the shitstorm they created with Hamhuis.

You'd be fired before you're hired blob.

[Strangelove]

^ Luckily for Blob they don't ask for his opinions when he applies for yet another janitorial position.

"The no-movement clause is something we earned and paid for and negotiated." - Dan Hamhuis

Totally but a smart GM would have asked him sooner and if it was a no go then fine. See if can re-sign him July 1. The numbskull here waited until the 11th hour and made a dog and pony show out of it.

What day exactly did Jimbro first talk to Hamhuis about the possibility of him waiving his NTC?

What we do know is that Hamhuis eventually agreed to waiving for 2 teams: Chicago and Dallas.

Chicago wasn't interested and Dallas decided to trade for Russell.

Oh well.

"Dog and pony show"?

Most teams go through these very things in the days leading up to the deadline...

[Strangelove]

Agree with you Blob about the Hamhuis fiasco. I like a lot of things that Benning has done; but, he botched trading Hamhuis by not having earlier discussions with him about the possibility of a trade. This whole thing about not having discussions with guys about the possibility of waiving their NTC or NMC because a player has earned it has always bugged me. They have earned the right not to approve of the trade; but, a decent GM should be having ongoing discussions with his players about where they fit for the team going forward and whether the GM can help them get to a team they like if they are no longer viewed as being in the teams plans.

I agree that you don't ask a guy to move on at the beginning of the season. However, Hamhuis was going to be a free agent at the end of the season and the media kept asking about his status as a trade deadline candidate from Christmas on. Hamhuis even went public to tell the Canucks that he wanted to stay and would take a discount. As a courtesy to Hamhuis who had been great team player, Benning should have been having discussions with him about: how much he would be looking at to stay; where the Canucks viewed him ie as a third line D or would not resign him in the summer; and whether he would be interested in Benning trying to move him at the deadline to a desired team for the playoffs. The way the Canucks handled it embarrassed the team and Hamhuis. After all that, my recollection is that the Canucks did not try to resign him in the summer. It was early on for Benning and while I think he is a great drafter, I also think he is not the best communicator. Hopefully he learned from the experience; but, I thought it was poor form.

There are eight million stories in the naked city. This has been one of them.

And ffs one of the first things Jimmy did upon his arrival in 2014 was to get Jason Garrison to waive his NTC...

[Linc]

We were talking about Hamhuis not Garrison. I wondered if I was misremembering things a bit and did a search of the trade at the time. By the time Hamhuis was available a lot of teams had already made decisions. Cam Cole wrote an interesting article after the deadline - "Vancouver Canucks misplayed their best asset, Dan Hamhuis, in NHL trade deadline's biggest blunder". I don't think many people think it was Benning's finest hour.

[Mickey107]

We were talking about Hamhuis not Garrison. I wondered if I was misremembering things a bit and did a search of the trade at the time. By the time Hamhuis was available a lot of teams had already made decisions. Cam Cole wrote an interesting article after the deadline - "Vancouver Canucks misplayed their best asset, Dan Hamhuis, in NHL trade deadline's biggest blunder". I don't think many people think it was Benning's finest hour.

Wasn't only Benning though. As an organization, they were still on that kick about respect and "not" asking players to waive.
He maybe could have done more, I don't know.
It became a soap opera when Dan gave at least two radio interviews, (seemingly crying in one of them), about how tough it is for his family and
how stressful moving would be. All the time, the clock was ticking.
The whole thing was a mess. Lesson learned;
I lost a little respect for Dan though.

[Richardstroker69]

We were talking about Hamhuis not Garrison. I wondered if I was misremembering things a bit and did a search of the trade at the time. By the time Hamhuis was available a lot of teams had already made decisions. Cam Cole wrote an interesting article after the deadline - "Vancouver Canucks misplayed their best asset, Dan Hamhuis, in NHL trade deadline's biggest blunder". I don't think many people think it was Benning's finest hour.

Wasn't only Benning though. As an organization, they were still on that kick about respect and "not" asking players to waive.
He maybe could have done more, I don't know.
It became a soap opera when Dan gave at least two radio interviews, (seemingly crying in one of them), about how tough it is for his family and
how stressful moving would be. All the time, the clock was ticking.
The whole thing was a mess. Lesson learned;
I lost a little respect for Dan though.

That whole hamhuis situation was a linden special

[Blob Mckenzie]

Why was it Lindens fault?

[Cousin Strawberry]

Why was it Lindens fault?

Cuz he turtled when Lemieux was yanking his collar

[Strangelove]

And ffs one of the first things Jimmy did upon his arrival in 2014 was to get Jason Garrison to waive his NTC...

We were talking about Hamhuis not Garrison.

I was clearly addressing your assertion that, early on, GMJB was not comfortable asking Hamhuis to waive his NTC

... and your eventual conclusion: "Hopefully (Benning) learned from the (Hamhuis) experience."

Those assertions/suggestions bring the Garrison situation into play as far as our conversation is concerned.

See, GMJB had no problem whatsoever asking Garrison to waive his NTC

... a full two years prior to the Hamhuis situation.

I am challenging your chosen narrative, which is why I said:

"There are eight million stories in the naked city. This has been one of them." - Strangelove

[SKYO]

We were talking about Hamhuis not Garrison. I wondered if I was misremembering things a bit and did a search of the trade at the time. By the time Hamhuis was available a lot of teams had already made decisions. Cam Cole wrote an interesting article after the deadline - "Vancouver Canucks misplayed their best asset, Dan Hamhuis, in NHL trade deadline's biggest blunder". I don't think many people think it was Benning's finest hour.

Wasn't only Benning though. As an organization, they were still on that kick about respect and "not" asking players to waive.
He maybe could have done more, I don't know.
It became a soap opera when Dan gave at least two radio interviews, (seemingly crying in one of them), about how tough it is for his family and
how stressful moving would be. All the time, the clock was ticking.
The whole thing was a mess. Lesson learned;
I lost a little respect for Dan though.

That whole hamhuis situation was a linden special

reeks of it.

[Hockey Widow]

We were talking about Hamhuis not Garrison. I wondered if I was misremembering things a bit and did a search of the trade at the time. By the time Hamhuis was available a lot of teams had already made decisions. Cam Cole wrote an interesting article after the deadline - "Vancouver Canucks misplayed their best asset, Dan Hamhuis, in NHL trade deadline's biggest blunder". I don't think many people think it was Benning's finest hour.

Here’s what happened. Over the summer Canucks decided NOT to entertain new contracts for both Hamhuis and Vrbata at that time. Both guys were told that. Hamhuis WAS asked if he’d consider waiving his NTC. He said no. Vrbata had a MNTC and wasn’t asked at that time.

Canucks let it be known they would circle back in January, assess where the team was at and determine if either player fit in their plans moving forward. By January Hamhuis was hurt on IR. Vrbata had disappeared. They tried moving Vrbata but had no interest. When the trade deadline approached they got his list and we all know the story.

With Hamhuis the Canucks were torn about moving him or not. As the deadline approached they did ask him with about a week to go. He said no, wanted to negotiate a new deal. Canucks then told him they decided to move on from him. With about 2 days before the deadline he indicated that yes he would waive but gave a very limited number of teams, Dallas and Chicago. Chicago had expressed some interest but then declined leaving only Dallas and they chose Russell. They did circle back at the last minute and offered up a 4th or less depending upon whose version you listen to. Benning decided that having Hamhuis play out the season was more valuable then whatever Dallas was offering and also decided not to give into a low ball offer from Dallas.

Doing a critique is easy but should be done factually.

1) if they knew they wanted to move Hamhuis the opportunity to do so should have been done over the summer. But they were unsure at that time how he fit moving forward. And he said no. If they were sure they wanted to move him then they would have. They would have pressured him like they did Garrison.

2) he had a serious injury by January and no one knew if he’d play again that season and if he did, if before the trade deadline. As it turned out he was taken off IR shortly before the deadline. Even at that there was a lot of interest in him.

3) Hamhuis held out for almost a week before he finally agreed to waive, leaving 48 hours to move him, to one of two teams.

4) Hamhuis had every right to play it the way he did and the Canucks respected that.

5) the Canucks were uncertain until January whether they wanted to give him a new contract or trade him. By then he was injured AND unwilling to waive until 48 hours before the deadline.

It’s simply revisionist history to write it up any other way. Unfortunately we are seeing it play out again in Edler. But with less public attention. Canucks haven’t decided if they want to resign Edler or move on. The difference perhaps is they see Edler as more valuable at this point than they did Hamhuis so there is a strong case to be made to keep him. They also see him as having higher trade value. Again I think come January they will make a decision. In Edler’s case he has not been approached by Benning. I suspect that come January, if Edler is healthy, they will explore trades and if they have a trade they like they will approach him. Which was the plan with Hamhuis but he was injured.

I was disappointed we didn’t trade Hamhuis too. I wanted to see something in return. I would have been happy though with a two year deal instead. I would love a good return for Edler but I’ll be happy with a two year deal instead as long as it doesn’t have a full no movement clause because I don’t want to have to protect him in the expansion draft.

All of this, Garrison, Kesler, Hamhuis, Vrbata, Edler, Burrows, Bieksa and Hansen shows us how Bieksa, Burrows and Hansen did us a solid. Bieksa only asked we trade him to a team that was willing to give him a two year deal. Same with Burrows. Hansen gave his list and was reasonable in his selections, unlike Vrbata. Garrison said no three times to St. Louis then finally said yes to Tampa but it cost us. Kesler pretty much fucked us over, as was his right.

When all is said and done I really have no issue with how any of the players handled it though. They earned and negotiated that right. I’m amazed though at how well Benning did in moving all the trade protected players he did. I accept that the return was disappointing but I’m hard pressed to find Benning at fault for that.

[Carl Yagro]

Boom! Thank you HW, for once again stating the facts.

Unlike some narratives (FAKE NEWS), people repeatedly voice their thoughts and opinions until they declare it to be facts to fit their own agenda.

We know the core players who were here for the best times in franchise history, were unflinchingly loyal (except RK17) and sincerely loved this city and team. All were likely reluctant but some put their love of the city and team ahead of themselves and agreed to waive. Some didn't, as was/is their right... even if we didn't/don't like it.

The only real fault I see is that JB isn't a person who can ruthlessly fuck people over for personal gain or to save himself.

[Strangelove]

Unlike some narratives (FAKE NEWS), people repeatedly voice their thoughts and opinions until they declare it to be facts to fit their own agenda.

I know eh?

Even though Lord Benning is from a hockey family, an NHLer since 1981, an assistant GM since 2006, it's kinda like...

"I have been a fan for many years, and as such am way more qualified than Jim Benning to be the Canucks GM. From my elevated perch, I can look down on him as he stumbles about down there, a mere peasant, a buffoon compared to the great me. Every baseless rumour that suggests he may have goofed somewhere is one I embrace with open arms, as it reinforces my delusion of how truly awesome I am. Out of benevolence, I will acknowledge when he seems to have taken a baby step here or there, hey if he's lucky he could grow up one day to almost be as wise as me! Sure I push a broom for a living, but I know in my heart of hearts I would make a much better GM than Elmer... among others. I can see myself at a gathering of Canucks brass passing on my suggestions as they marvel at my my wisdom, and afterwards we'll relax over a few drinks with myself as the admired and beloved centre of attention..."

[Blob Mckenzie]

Unlike some narratives (FAKE NEWS), people repeatedly voice their thoughts and opinions until they declare it to be facts to fit their own agenda.

I know eh?

Even though Lord Benning is from a hockey family, an NHLer since 1981, an assistant GM since 2006, it's kinda like...

"I have been a fan for many years, and as such am way more qualified than Jim Benning to be the Canucks GM. From my elevated perch, I can look down on him as he stumbles about down there, a mere peasant, a buffoon compared to the great me. Every baseless rumour that suggests he may have goofed somewhere is one I embrace with open arms, as it reinforces my delusion of how truly awesome I am. Out of benevolence, I will acknowledge when he seems to have taken a baby step here or there, hey if he's lucky he could grow up one day to almost be as wise as me! Sure I push a broom for a living, but I know in my heart of hearts I would make a much better GM than Elmer, among others. I can see myself at a gathering of Canucks brass passing on my suggestions as they marvel at my my wisdom, and afterwards we'll relax over a few drinks with myself as the admired and beloved centre of attention..."

Haven’t heard anyone on this board ever say they are capable of being a GM. What I do know however is that a group of troll posters are incapable of looking at Elmer’s moves as a GM objectively or individually. In their world every single trade, signing and draft pick has been incredible.