High risk high reward kind of trade which I like, and because I think we as Canucks fan overvalued Hutton, he munched a lot of minutes yes, but that doesn’t mean he’s good, it’s just that edler and tanev happened to go down at the same time. You put him on any other team he’ll probably end up being a bottom pairing guy, I honestly don’t think teams are willing to trade 2nd/3rd round picks for a bottom6 dman. That’s just me of course and I understand not a lot of posters here like puljujarvi. Cheers
Confirmed with Link: Canucks do not qualify Ben Hutton, he is now a UFA
- Thread starter Rowlet
- Start date
Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,189
- 16,076
Apparently..,Nick Kypreous is reporting that Tyson Barrie has an interest in signing with the Canucks when he hits UFA next season.
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
Hughes has played 5 NHL games and is on an ELC for another two years. This is exactly the time where you can get away with paying you're "3rd pairing" dman a bit more money - not that it should even cost $4M. Especially when your #1 is good for missing 20-30 games a season. Hutton isn't great but he's shown he can be played up the lineup when required, something you can't see for a typical 3rd pairing FA that you'll find on the market.
I mean seriously this is pretty much the same argument made when Benning traded Garrison all those years ago, how well did that go? Have people really learned nothing here?
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 16,879
- 9,560
sounds like maybe he was disappointed to be left at the altar on draft day.
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 16,879
- 9,560
although i make some allowances for the oilers screwing things up, i have come to roughly this conclusion. i think the finnish gm passed on him for a reason.
xtra
Registered User
I wonder if benning sees this and decides to wait out an hear on singing a dman
He probably reads the underlined section and gives Barrie a call, promptly receiving another tampering fine.
Yeah of course he would.
Barrie should have an interest in the canucks helping him drive up his asking price to more attractive teams. It’s about the only thing the canucks are good for these days.
Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,189
- 16,076
Lots of the usual negative hypotheticals flying around here, but I would rather the Canucks get someone like Stralman this season..and go hard for a UFA Dman next year (there's a good list to pick from.Krug,Barrie,Pietrangelo.)
PuckMunchkin
Very Nice, Very Evil!
Only way this plays out well is if we sign him for same or less as the qualifying offer.
It's the exact same psychology in fans that we see in Benning when he trades for a Derek Pouliot because he really liked him when he scouting him in junior and he was a high pick. People are stunningly slow to adjust to new information.
Like I'd take a flyer on Puljujarvi. But anyone who 'really wants him' and is willing to give up something substantial doesn't have a clue.
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 16,879
- 9,560
i do not understand how that is a metric? do you know for a fact we could have done that at some point before we chose not to qualify him? if not, why that figure?
also, there are many ways it plays out well:
it plays out well if we end up with a better player for the role we would have had hutton play
it plays out well if we end up with a cheaper player who fulfils the role we would have had hutton play
it plays out well if we repurpose the money for something more valuable than hutton that works out well and compromise on hutton's replacement in a way that does not offset that gain.
it plays out well if we resign hutton at the same or lower price we could have signed him before not qualifying him, and then he plays decently in the role we want for him.
incidentally, the obsession with players as assets on a balance sheet is bizarre. this is hockey, not accounting. sometimes you walk away from someone to gain another better opportunity. sometimes that blows up in your face and there are regrets and you wish you still had the old player. it's more like dating than accounting.
Melvin
21/12/05
Man I wish I had access to my old PM's where I had a bet going about nail Yakupov after he left edmonton. Someone on here was willing to sign him to like a 6 year contract. I think the bet was that he'd play fewer than 100 more games which would mean I just barely won, but I can't remember.
How would you guys rank the Canucks Dmen right now? (Including Hutton)
My list:
1. Edler
2. Stecher
3. Tanev
4. Hughes (he’ll be moving up fo sho)
5. Hutton
6. ??
(This is based mainly on last year. Stecher was awesome, and Tanev had one of his worst. Also, the difference from Stech down to Hutton is pretty small)
My list:
1. Edler
2. Stecher
3. Tanev
4. Hughes (he’ll be moving up fo sho)
5. Hutton
6. ??
(This is based mainly on last year. Stecher was awesome, and Tanev had one of his worst. Also, the difference from Stech down to Hutton is pretty small)
I am toxic
. . . even in small doses
Schenn or Biega next.
Schenn because he worked well with Hughes.
Biega because he is good for 60 games - needs to be rested every 4th game or so, otherwise he can't maintain that bulldog pace.
Juolevi? I wouldn't wish him on an AHL team.
I am wondering if Green has anything to do with this decision, Green was never a big fan of Hutton. Benning does listen to Green on player movement. Green wanted players tougher to play against, Benning went out and signed bunch of bottom 6 gritty players. Green had a say in Bringing Pouliot and Leipsic here.
All this conditioning issues few years ago was just a bunch of non sense. Aside from points, I believe his analytics got worst this year.
Benning was always high on Hutton. He wouldn't trade Barrie for him. Some rumors that JB rejected R Kane as well. Not sure if that is true. Seem odd Benning woud just give up on Hutton like that
All this conditioning issues few years ago was just a bunch of non sense. Aside from points, I believe his analytics got worst this year.
Benning was always high on Hutton. He wouldn't trade Barrie for him. Some rumors that JB rejected R Kane as well. Not sure if that is true. Seem odd Benning woud just give up on Hutton like that
me2
Go ahead foot
A quick estimate
if we bring back the existing forwards, re-sign Stecher and Tryamkin back (~$3-4m each), sign Boeser to $7.5m, let Tanev go, and Pettersson and Hughes kind of stink and miss their bonuses, and we don't sign Myers, get a cheap backup to support Demko and promote cheap prospects to filler roles. we should be able to fit Barrie in.
PuckMunchkin
Very Nice, Very Evil!
For me to respond to your post I would have to perform an exorcism to rid you of what ever makes you think your last paragraph is true.
I'll plant a seed. Jim Benning agrees with you. That has lead to this so far:
TinyURL.com - shorten that long URL into a tiny URL
Intangibos
High-End Intangibos
Edler
Tanev
Stetcher
Hutton
Hughes
Highes is extremely likely to shoot up that list but he's played 5 games so I'm not putting him ahead of anyone who has at least shown to be capable of playing top-4 for extended periods. Hutton improved last year and freed from Gudbranson I could see both him and Stetcher moving past Tanev if he continues to decline.
After a full season I wouldn't be shocked to see
Edler
Hughes
Hutton/Stetcher/Tanev
Addison Rae
Registered User
Hutton would be a very good “money pick” pick up for Toronto.
Played way too many minutes in Vancouver and one of the worst defenders in the league as his most common partner.
I could see Hutton playing really good on a middle pairing with Travis Dermott.
Played way too many minutes in Vancouver and one of the worst defenders in the league as his most common partner.
I could see Hutton playing really good on a middle pairing with Travis Dermott.
Just horrendous planning if the idea is to start Hughes in the top 4 to begin the season. Also hilarious that people are ranking him right now in the top 4 (including Hutton).
This is a player that has 5 NHL games to his name and hasn't played more than 40ish games in a full year. He obviously has potential and will most likely (and hopefully) move up the list throughout the year. But some people need to give their head a shake.
I'd much rather see Hughes worked into the lineup on the bottom pairing with some prime offensive minutes and PP time. He is probably within the top 6 of defenders right now just because our defense is so trash to begin with. I wouldn't be surprised to see the kid struggle if we just throw him directly into a top 4 role.
This is a player that has 5 NHL games to his name and hasn't played more than 40ish games in a full year. He obviously has potential and will most likely (and hopefully) move up the list throughout the year. But some people need to give their head a shake.
I'd much rather see Hughes worked into the lineup on the bottom pairing with some prime offensive minutes and PP time. He is probably within the top 6 of defenders right now just because our defense is so trash to begin with. I wouldn't be surprised to see the kid struggle if we just throw him directly into a top 4 role.
Ranking Hughes in the top 4 right now is partly due to how talented he is but also says a lot about just how bad our D is.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to put him fourth behind Edler, Stecher and Tanev.
He’s also a very special player.
