Waived: Canucks claim D Ryan Stanton from CHI

[tantalum]

Oh, I bet you're right on that. He's such a good player; it's must be injury. I would love to see him partnered with a gorilla-type D man. Too bad we don't have one of those guys on the back end.

It just looks like a lot of his mistakes are of the "oh I can get to that puck. Oh crap no acceleration now I'm screwed, type of mistakes." What makes it worse is he also doesn't seem to have any recovery capability either. So to me he's either hurt or he really lost a step during the off season. So I choose to believe injury because losing a step at 30 seems unlikely.

Of course it is possible that he really is completely confused on the system but given he has always shown great hockey IQ I find that hard to believe as well.

And he also missed time in camp with injury.

 

[Alflives*]

It just looks like a lot of his mistakes are of the "oh I can get to that puck. Oh crap no acceleration now I'm screwed, type of mistakes." What makes it worse is he also doesn't seem to have any recovery capability either. So to me he's either hurt or he really lost a step during the off season. So I choose to believe injury because losing a step at 30 seems unlikely.

Of course it is possible that he really is completely confused on the system but given he has always shown great hockey IQ I find that hard to believe as well.

And he also missed time in camp with injury.

I just be my house that he has a 'tweeked' groin.

 

[ShouldveDraftedFiala]

I'm willing to bet that Hamhuis' difficulty has more to do with a lack of acceleration and mobility from an unannounced groin injury than it does with the new system

pure speculation.

until we hear of such injury, he's struggling to adapt.

Ballard was a good player that wasn't given a chance because AV did not like him for whatever reason. He played favourites, we all know it, and this was a prime example.

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

pure speculation.

Pretty much what "I'm willing to bet" means.

The Canucks seem to run a pretty tight lipped ship (except for that pesky Hockey Widow and her "source" ) so I wouldn't assume that we would have necessarily heard something by now.

Again speculation, but maybe even Hamhuis himself wants to keep any injuries under wraps as to not hurt his chances of making team Canada.

 

[Barney Gumble]

pure speculation.

until we hear of such injury, he's struggling to adapt.

Ballard was a good player that wasn't given a chance because AV did not like him for whatever reason. He played favourites, we all know it, and this was a prime example.

1) Ballard NEVER played well consistantly for the Canucks to be allowed any real "benefit of the doubt"
2) Hamhuis HAS played well consistantly for the Canucks to be allowed the benefit of the doubt...at least for now. We ain't talking about "good year/bad year Kev"....

 

[Wetcoaster]

pure speculation.

until we hear of such injury, he's struggling to adapt.

Ballard was a good player that wasn't given a chance because AV did not like him for whatever reason. He played favourites, we all know it, and this was a prime example.

Nope not "pure speculation".

We heard of the injury during training camp and Hamhuis missed time. The Canucks (like virtually all teams) are pretty much close-mouthed about players who are playing through injury.
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Hamhuis+David+Booth+miss+opening+training+camp/7814190/story.html
http://www.theprovince.com/sports/C...ress+seems+making+progress/8950028/story.html

And much like Garrison last year who had a similar injury to start the year Hamhuis looks to not be not on top of his game as result. Just watch him skate - nothing like his normal stride.

Ballard had all sorts of chances but he did not take them.

 

[tantalum]

pure speculation.

until we hear of such injury, he's struggling to adapt.

Ballard was a good player that wasn't given a chance because AV did not like him for whatever reason. He played favourites, we all know it, and this was a prime example.

Of course it's somewhat speculative.

I could see if he was having major issue with coverage but that doesn't seem to be the issue. His glaring errors are him simply not getting to or being out competed for a puck. Those haven't been issues with Hamhuis before and are not system dependent.

He was also hurt in the preseason and missed practice time if I remember correctly (edit: thanks Wetcoaster)

Hamhuis wasn't played a lot because he was an AV favourite (which seems to be what you are implying with the Ballard and AV playing favourites remark). He was played a lot because he was the teams best D-man...often times head and shoulders above the rest. The only time it wasn't true for any major stretch was the back half of last season when garrison was arguably better....but Hamhuis wasn't terrible. Conversely, by and large Ballard was the worst D-man on the roster. You could maybe argue Alberts was worse but not really anyone else.

 

[Upoil]

Nope not "pure speculation".

We heard of the injury during training camp and Hamhuis missed time. The Canucks (like virtually all teams) are pretty much close-mouthed about players who are playing through injury.
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Hamhuis+David+Booth+miss+opening+training+camp/7814190/story.html
http://www.theprovince.com/sports/C...ress+seems+making+progress/8950028/story.html

And much like Garrison last year who had a similar injury to start the year Hamhuis looks to not be not on top of his game as result. Just watch him skate - nothing like his normal stride.

Ballard had all sorts of chances but he did not take them.

I must say that it's a joy to have you back posting here. I really enjoy your posts because you back up what you are saying. Great contrast to 60% of posts with little to no substance beyond 'No, you are wrong because your opinion is different than mine!'.

 

[Alflives*]

I must say that it's a joy to have you back posting here. I really enjoy your posts because you back up what you are saying. Great contrast to 60% of posts with little to no substance beyond 'No, you are wrong because your opinion is different than mine!'.

Stanton appears to be a good (young) d-man. If completely healthy, would Hamhuis be able to get Gardiner (from TO.) in trade?

 

[Upoil]

Stanton appears to be a good (young) d-man. If completely healthy, would Hamhuis be able to get Gardiner (from TO.) in trade?

I think TO would take that deal and run. Just my opinion though. From my perspective, as a Nucks fan, I wouldn't want to move Hamhuis for Gardiner straight up.

So to answer your question. Yes I think a healthy Hamhuis would be able to get Gardiner. (But maybe I have homer glasses on?)

 

[ddawg1950]

Stanton appears to be a good (young) d-man. If completely healthy, would Hamhuis be able to get Gardiner (from TO.) in trade?

I was high on Gardiner...until I saw him play this year.

He was dyn-o-mite in the playoffs against Boston last year. But was tentative for the limited time he played last year...and has not been good this year. I am aware of his concussion problems playing a role in his regular season troubles, but I am not as high on him as I was. He reminds me of Justin Schultz for Edmonton. Smooth in the O-zone, but a disaster playing defense.

Hamhuis is a much better D man, IMO.

 

[Alflives*]

I think TO would take that deal and run. Just my opinion though. From my perspective, as a Nucks fan, I wouldn't want to move Hamhuis for Gardiner straight up.

So to answer your question. Yes I think a healthy Hamhuis would be able to get Gardiner. (But maybe I have homer glasses on?)

Thanks for the 'take'. (ddawg too)

I have not watched Gardiner play, but read (on this site) that Nonis might be shopping him. I like Hamhuis too. He is an excellent D-man, but sometimes (to build a future core) teams need to move existing core guys. If it was Bieksa, who was traded for Gardiner, that would be okay too. I see Corrado, Tanev, Edler, and Stanton as younger guys, coming up on D. It would be nice to have a really offensive minded guy in that group too. Gardiner might work well.

 

[me2]

I'd consider something based around Bieksa for Gardiner but not Hamhuis (TO would likely want a RHD anyway, whether or not that is Kev is different matter).

 

[luongo321]

Hamhuis for Gardiner?

I think I'll keep our steady as a rock d-man that will start for Team Canada at the Olympics.

If he can make BIEKSA look good, you know he's damn good.

If Hamhuis didn't get injured, we would have won the Cup in 10-11. Our D went to hell after his injury.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Hamhuis for Gardiner?

Allow me to comment further...

And

More to the point

And in conclusion ROTFLMAO

 

[Nuckles]

Hamhuis for Gardiner? Is that some kind of really bad joke?

While we're at it, let's trade Edler to Edmonton for Oscar Klefbom and Kesler to Ottawa for Curtis Lazar.

 

[stevecanuck16]

To be fair, Alflives said he hasn't seen Gardiner play much, so he's probably basing the value on hype. And we all know that the Gardiner hype-train has been going full steam for a few years now.

I have to say, though, if Gardiner is too soft and lazy for Carlyle, I cannot imagine him and Torts getting along.

 

[vanuck]

To be fair, Alflives said he hasn't seen Gardiner play much, so he's probably basing the value on hype. And we all know that the Gardiner hype-train has been going full steam for a few years now.

I have to say, though, if Gardiner is too soft and lazy for Carlyle, I cannot imagine him and Torts getting along.

No thanks to a certain fanbase here on HF.