Confirmed with Link: Canucks do not qualify Ben Hutton, he is now a UFA

[BROCK HUGHES]

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.

I'm sure he will be playing 1st line minutes when Edler and Tanev are injured,just how it's going to play out.

 

[Canucks1096]

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.

Botchford ( rip ) said last year after he got drafted. I think Hughes is the second best D behind Edler if he starts the season in Van. This was last year,

Sure Hughes might struggle at times but for the most part I think he will play at the level as a top 4 D.

He was one of top prospects outside of the nhl probably top 3 to top 5. There has been lots of rookie that played in the top 4 during their rookie year.

Not Horrendous at all,

 

[I am toxic]

What? You write him <Juolevi> off before he even plays an NHL game?

Yes. Most hockey players don't make it to the NHL.

And some that make it there, shouldn't be there.

 

[4Twenty]

Yes. Most hockey players don't make it to the NHL.

And some that make it there, shouldn't be there.

Great post.

The idea that you can't tell what a player will be until you've seen them in the NHL is ridiculous.

Like you said, most players don't make the NHL....are we still holding out hope some guy drafted in 2006 is going to break through? Because we haven't seen him in the NHL?

 

[I am toxic]

Great post.

The idea that you can't tell what a player will be until you've seen them in the NHL is ridiculous.

Like you said, most players don't make the NHL....are we still holding out hope some guy drafted in 2006 is going to break through? Because we haven't seen him in the NHL?

Exactly. What's sad is how not only some fans, but management itself that holds on to the past - "he's a high draft pick, he must be good (because that's how we scouted him when he was 17 years old)". Sound familiar (Guds, Poo)?

 

[Upoil]

Botchford ( rip ) said last year after he got drafted. I think Hughes is the second best D behind Edler if he starts the season in Van. This was last year,

Sure Hughes might struggle at times but for the most part I think he will play at the level as a top 4 D.

He was one of top prospects outside of the nhl probably top 3 to top 5. There has been lots of rookie that played in the top 4 during their rookie year.

Not Horrendous at all,

Yes - there has been lots of rookies that have ended up playing in a top 4 role and I'd be ecstatic if that's where Hughes eventually ended up. I'm saying that planning on going into the season with Hughes in the top 4 without any sort of contingency plan is horrendous planning.

We should have kept Hutton even if he got ~$4M (he wasn't going to get this if anyone actually goes and looks at comparables) and give Hughes the opportunity to work is way up the lineup if he shows the ability to handle those minutes on the defensive side. I'm not doubting his offensive instincts at all.

Also, forgive me if I don't put much stock in your evaluation of prospects. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Juolevi will probably be a number 2/3 defensemen. Maybe at worst a number 4. As of right now no young defensemen has that upside in the organization. The best players that got drafted after Juolevi will be a 60 point guy. A number 3 Defensemen should have similiar value to a 60 point guy. Maybe a 60 point guy a little more value. But the Canucks need a number 3 defensemen more than a 60 point guy.

 

[Hit the post]

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.

You don’t think an undersized guy never playing more than 40 games in a season is suddenly going to be able to handle 82 NHL games (at least no bus rides) right away?

 

[iFan]

I’m not against walking away from him at 4 million but shouldn’t we have traded him at TDL for an asset back? If he lets Hutton walk because he’s not worth 4 million how will Benning handle Sutter and Ericksson.

 

[Canucks1096]

You don’t think an undersized guy never playing more than 40 games in a season is suddenly going to be able to handle 82 NHL games (at least no bus rides) right away?

Troy Stecher said Hi. No disrespect to Stecher, Hughes is completely different level from Stecher.

 

[Hit the post]

Troy Stecher said Hi. No disrespect to Stecher, Hughes is completely different level from Stecher.

Stecher came also when Tanev & Edler were both two years younger and less mileage on their bodies. As well, there were more bodies on the blueline at the time including the big Russian. Huge difference from my point of view. Especially if Tanev and Edler go down their usual length of games.
As bad as that blueline was, at least their was some semblance of depth. Right now, Hughes is #4 by default rather than by merit.

Blueline depth is nonexistent currently.

 

[Canucks1096]

Yes - there has been lots of rookies that have ended up playing in a top 4 role and I'd be ecstatic if that's where Hughes eventually ended up. I'm saying that planning on going into the season with Hughes in the top 4 without any sort of contingency plan is horrendous planning.

We should have kept Hutton even if he got ~$4M (he wasn't going to get this if anyone actually goes and looks at comparables) and give Hughes the opportunity to work is way up the lineup if he shows the ability to handle those minutes on the defensive side. I'm not doubting his offensive instincts at all.

Also, forgive me if I don't put much stock in your evaluation of prospects. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Can you provide me some evidences from a few years ago that you predicted by D+3 Juolevi wouldn't played a single nhl game?

If you didn't predict This, not sure what right you have to judge someone prediction. When Juolevi got drafted, don't think anyone thought by now, He wouldn't play an nhl game.

I did say at worst a number 4 D. They can still happen. For the record Tkachuk is more of a 60 point range player becuase thee league is higher scoring now.

I have same opinion as Botchford ( Rip) about Hughes. Don't think you know more than Botchford.

If you like to read my posts. Read one of my Virtanen Gaudette and Lind predictions. They were close to bang on

 

[MS]

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.

We gave him 85% o-zone starts when he came in last year.

Doing anything other than playing him on a sheltered 3rd pairing with a veteran partner (and lots of PP time) is incredibly reckless and how Edmonton ruined Justin Schultz.

 

[iFan]

Hughes has the skill set and seems ready for the NHL, we have Edler and Tanev to help the kid out, he should be in our top 4, he should be on the PP. Play the kid don’t hold him back.

 

[LuckyDay]

Hutton was our best D on the PP last year after Edler, but I don't think he could handle the extra work down the stretch after the injury to Edler and Travis Green's favourite boy was finally gone.

Regarding this salary, what is he going think of management now that he could have been due for at least 4m after arbitration? If another team makes an for what the Canucks would pay him I could see him walking. They've also not forgiven him for showing up at camp out of shape the year before. He was really trying to prove himself last year and that's got to sting to not be acknowledged for his effort.

 

[Hit the post]

Hughes has the skill set and seems ready for the NHL, we have Edler and Tanev to help the kid out, he should be in our top 4, he should be on the PP. Play the kid don’t hold him back.

Considering our injury history, I doubt anyone could hold him back even if they wanted to. He’ll go up the depth chart automatically.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

Hoping Hutton signs with a competitive team. I'm looking forward to see how he fares in a more favorable situation.

 

[RandV]

Hughes has the skill set and seems ready for the NHL, we have Edler and Tanev to help the kid out, he should be in our top 4, he should be on the PP. Play the kid don’t hold him back.

No doubt Hughes has immense talent to move the back and control it in the offensive zone, but you can't help be hesitant how a 5'10" 170lbs 20 year old is going to handle actually defending in the NHL over an extended period. It's a great time for a smaller guy to come into the league but that's going to be a challenge.

 

[Hit the post]

No doubt Hughes has immense talent to move the back and control it in the offensive zone, but you can't help be hesitant how a 5'10" 170lbs 20 year old is going to handle actually defending in the NHL over an extended period. It's a great time for a smaller guy to come into the league but that's going to be a challenge.

How about a pairing (if both Tanev & Edler are out) of two 5'10" 185 lbs 20-23 year olds?

 

[RandV]

How about a pairing (if both Tanev & Edler are out) of two 5'10" 185 lbs 20-23 year olds?

Yeah that's fun. Though depending on how accurate these numbers actually are 5'10" is short for a dman but 185lbs is a solid build for someone 5'10". I'd be more concerned about Hughes weight here than his height.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

What? You write him off before he even plays an NHL game?

This is not very logical at all. Using the fact that he has failed to make the NHL as a defense of him as a player.

Ill take that to the extreme so you see where the logical flaw is;
Im 35, soon 36 and have not played ANY hockey for ~15 years.

I hope you have written me off despite not playing in the NHL.

 

[VanJack]

I understand that the Canucks can't justify a $4m annual contract for Hutton, who projects as a third-pairing left-side d-man.

Then I remember that the same hockey ops gurus are apparently fine with paying Eriksson $6m a season; Jay Beagle $3m a season; Ryan Spooner $3m a season; and Tim Schaller $1.9m a season.

Given the dire dearth of d-man available via trade and free agency, you'd think the least they'd do with Hutton is qualify him and then try to trade him. But of course Jimbo is apparently OK with letting him walk instead.

 

[CanadianTrashPanda]

This is not very logical at all. Using the fact that he has failed to make the NHL as a defense of him as a player.

Ill take that to the extreme so you see where the logical flaw is;
Im 35, soon 36 and have not played ANY hockey for ~15 years.

I hope you have written me off despite not playing in the NHL.

How is it ridiculous, he's had a couple injuries and he was projecting upwards before he tore his meniscus. Second, he hasn't failed to make the NHL yet, however, the original poster wrote him off completely as he said that he wouldn't wish him on another AHL team. How can some individuals completely write off Juolevi when he's only played a limited amount of games? How can Juolevi prove himself when hes only play 18 AHL games? Sure, if he played two full AHL seasons and wasn't progressing then by all means write him off or trade him.

 

[Hit the post]

He wasn’t really projecting upwards prior to his latest major injury. Sure he was putting up some points highlighting his offensive skills but was largely in sheltered minutes. Biggest obstacle he has to overcome besides learning how to defend is to stay healthy.

 

[Horse McHindu]

How can some individuals completely write off Juolevi when he's only played a limited amount of games?

He's a "Benning guy" and so the usual suspects want to hate him.

You have to remember that amongst some people:

1) If a draft pick is or looks really good, it was because of Brackett, and Benning actually wanted someone else (the usual suspects will then link troll blog CanucksArmy to corroborate "the story.")
2) If a pick hasn't panned out right away, it is deemed as a "bust," and it's because of Benning.
3) Any good Canuck trade (Guds for Pearson, etc.) was due to someone else's thought in the organisation.
4) Any current/former Canucks prospect drafted/signed/acquired by the previous regime (Hutton, Biega, Gaunce, Darren Archibald, etc.) are all extremely overvalued on here, while any of "Benning's guys," that aren't clear cut homeruns are viciously attacked on almost a personal level.
5) All/most "advanced analytics" guys interpret the numbers in a way that suits them and attack Benning, so that it fits their narrative.

Unfortunately, it's just the way things are.

My advice to you is to take these "analysis'" with a massive grain of salt, and do your own extensive research to figure out the truth.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

How is it ridiculous, he's had a couple injuries and he was projecting upwards before he tore his meniscus. Second, he hasn't failed to make the NHL yet, however, the original poster wrote him off completely as he said that he wouldn't wish him on another AHL team. How can some individuals completely write off Juolevi when he's only played a limited amount of games? How can Juolevi prove himself when hes only play 18 AHL games? Sure, if he played two full AHL seasons and wasn't progressing then by all means write him off or trade him.

Im not writing him off.

The fact that he has not made the NHL is not in his favor.
The fact that he has had two major surgeries before playing a game in the NHL is not in his favor.

He has missed two summers of training, doing rehab. Also not in his favor.

He was bad in the AHL. People who watched Utica games can vouch for this.
He was decent in Finland here, the year before, I watched him, I can vouch for this. But he also had the same issues he has had ever since being drafted (maybe before.) Terrible when in his own end without the puck.

I think we should lower the expectations on him quite a bit. At this point, we should be positively surprised if we get a NHL player out of him.