CanucksCorner.com Forums

Todd Bersnoozi wrote: Yeah, a movie when Wee Todd had a brain cramp...

Yeah, you've been "having a brain cramp" since the early 2000's there Odd Todd.

Strangelove wrote: Yeah, you've been "having a brain cramp" since the early 2000's there Odd Todd.

And slamin Strangelove's head since, since, well... since longer than I can remember.

How's that noggin doing old buddy? Still having those migranes? Still think the Nucks will win the Cup this year? Remembering that the milk goes back in the fridge? Hey, can you get it up when the old lady wants it?

Came across this article about how unproductive the D has been. Bartkowski tied for the team lead in goals by a d-man - "and every one has been a surprise" .

I think what JB does to the blueline this offseason will determine the Canucks season. I now believe letting Hamhuis walk will be a big mistake, unless the plan is to tank next year as well. Hutton has blossomed playing with Hammer to become the team's most productive dman, however I don't think he's ready to anchor a pairing with another rookie.

I think if Hamhuis is re-signed, it will be a relatively short-term contract. With Tryamkin, Pedan, Hutton, and potentially Subban potentially developing into regulars in the next 2-3 years, I would be okay with bringing in a UFA veteran offensive-defenceman, even if its big-term/big-money - i.e. Yandle, Goligoski, etc.

The only "project" dman I'd take on is Jordie Benn. Not only has he been a solid bottom-pairing, but little bro is a ufa next year. Unless there's a long-term gain like that, I don't think its worth picking up a fringe vet and taking up a roster spot.

ESQ wrote:Came across this article about how unproductive the D has been. Bartkowski tied for the team lead in goals by a d-man - "and every one has been a surprise" .

I think what JB does to the blueline this offseason will determine the Canucks season. I now believe letting Hamhuis walk will be a big mistake, unless the plan is to tank next year as well. Hutton has blossomed playing with Hammer to become the team's most productive dman, however I don't think he's ready to anchor a pairing with another rookie.

I think if Hamhuis is re-signed, it will be a relatively short-term contract. With Tryamkin, Pedan, Hutton, and potentially Subban potentially developing into regulars in the next 2-3 years, I would be okay with bringing in a UFA veteran offensive-defenceman, even if its big-term/big-money - i.e. Yandle, Goligoski, etc.

The only "project" dman I'd take on is Jordie Benn. Not only has he been a solid bottom-pairing, but little bro is a ufa next year. Unless there's a long-term gain like that, I don't think its worth picking up a fringe vet and taking up a roster spot.

Not that I usually do, but I was in the car so heard both WD and Benning on the radio.
I'm not to sure now that WD will be here next year
I like your idea about spending the money on a D-man but do you feel comfortable with our coaching?
personally, I like Doug Lidster but have some issues with WD...

Arachnid wrote:
No one has officially (or unofficially or fish oily 'Hi' Rats! ) said Hammer is not back.....he would be a great stable teaching vet back here with Tryamkin & Pedan.

We can get a better D-man for less if we are looking to fill his void. I love what he has done for the team, but his age is showing. Hammer for $2.5mil on a 1 season deal is what he is worth to us. Someone else will offer him a lot more (Tarana and the Coilers both could use him badly - in all senses of the word)

Today Benning said he would like Hamhuis back, at a term and cap that makes sense for the team. Plan to talk to Hamhuis as soon as the season is done to see where he is at. If they are on the same page then he will try to re-sign him over the next few weeks, before the draft. Was hesitant but my impression was that they would like him back for 2 years perhaps at a much lower cap and it will be up to Hamhuis to decide if he values playing in Vancouver over testing FA. But it did not sound like it was an open ended sort of thing. Not the FA they will open the wallet for or give extended term to. Also sounded like there is a window for Hamhuis to decide. Benning wants to know heading into the draft were the team is at.

Hamhuis should sign with a team that has a chance to win a cup, especially if the Canucks want to low-ball him.

I think Dallas could use him.

I've never been a big believer in switching up coaches to somehow transform a team, with very few exceptions - Ken Hitchcock for example can parachute into a team and instantly turn them around for a season, then regress the following season. Teams that fired Hitch are almost always far worse the following year (which may get tested by the Blues next year if they don't get past the 1st round). Look at the other lottery teams - the two "best" available coaches in Hitchcock and McLellan, and neither of those coaches were able to get a better-than-expected result out of their terrible teams.

In assessing WD, I look at the Canucks' goal of developing homegrown talent. I was a pretty big supporter of AV staying around until the very end, but there's no question he was terrible at developing prospects. The only rookies that developed in AV's 7 seasons were Tanev, Edler, Raymond and Hansen. Bieksa, Burrows and Kesler were already on the roster.

By contrast, WD has already had more rookies in 2 seasons than AV had in 7. WD's watch has seen the development into credible NHLers of Hutton, Horvat, and Baertschi. McCann, Virtanen, Tryamkin and Pedan may have established themselves, though they may need a year split with the farm to take that next step. Etem, Vey, and Granlund have all made progress, but are looking like filler players.

While none of the rookies have turned into first-liners yet, Willie has already been at the helm of one of the most fruitful development years in Canucks' history. And importantly, it came in a season where Higgins, Prust, Weber, etc. were under contract but weren't allowed to stand in the way of youth.

So yes, I think Willie is safe. He couldn't coach his way out of a catastrophic injury season (2nd worst for quality of players lost), but he did have some tangible accomplishments in player development, and were in the thick of the playoff race until a month ago.

Island Nucklehead wrote:Hamhuis should sign with a team that has a chance to win a cup, especially if the Canucks want to low-ball him.

I think Dallas could use him.

I'm thinking 2 years at around 4 million, not really a low ball. I don't think Benning would insult him. I think term is the real issue here.

Hockey Widow wrote:
I'm thinking 2 years at around 4 million, not really a low ball. I don't think Benning would insult him. I think term is the real issue here.

I don't think there's any 22-minute defenseman available for less than $4mil. I definitely think he's worth more to JB than $2.5 mil, because there isn't going to be a UFA option at that price to replace Hamhuis's minutes.

ESQ wrote:

Hockey Widow wrote:
I'm thinking 2 years at around 4 million, not really a low ball. I don't think Benning would insult him. I think term is the real issue here.

I don't think there's any 22-minute defenseman available for less than $4mil. I definitely think he's worth more to JB than $2.5 mil, because there isn't going to be a UFA option at that price to replace Hamhuis's minutes.

I can see it at about 3.25 to 3.5 for 2 years. There is a bit of a question about his durability now.

ESQ wrote:

Hockey Widow wrote:
I'm thinking 2 years at around 4 million, not really a low ball. I don't think Benning would insult him. I think term is the real issue here.

I don't think there's any 22-minute defenseman available for less than $4mil. I definitely think he's worth more to JB than $2.5 mil, because there isn't going to be a UFA option at that price to replace Hamhuis's minutes.

I agree and unless he is targeting a RHS on D I think Hamhuis is the safe money. If he can get a two year term at 4 per I'd be in favour of it. And hey, he might even get a TDD do over : mrgreen:

I have no problem moving on from Dan Hamhuis. Even before the injury he was awful.

His best play was in a small handful of games at the deadline. Too little too late.

Topper wrote:I have no problem moving on from Dan Hamhuis. Even before the injury he was awful.

His best play was in a small handful of games at the deadline. Too little too late.

Absolutely agree with Tops. Walk away.

No way JB gives him big dollars, term or NTC. Sounds like some GM-speak to me.

See ya Dan, Alex, Chris. Say goodbye to your Daddy, Vey. Aufwiedersehen Weber, can you deliver a Pizza back to Switzerland?

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

Todd Bersnoozi wrote: Yeah, a movie when Wee Todd had a brain cramp and (Bertuzzied) StrangeMoore

Yeah, you've been "having a brain cramp" since the early 2000's there Odd Todd.

And slamin Strangelove's head since, since, well... since longer than I can remember.

How's that noggin doing old buddy? Still having those migranes? Still think the Nucks will win the Cup this year? Remembering that the milk goes back in the fridge? Hey, can you get it up when the old lady wants it?

Meanwhile back in the real world the Great Strangelove has Toddles referring to himself as "Wee Todd".