Canucks Trade Deadline Predictions

[banme*]

1) Honestly, if we could get 2 2nds for Hamhuis/Vrbata each (So 4 total... and assuming they were higher 2nds, and not picks 56/57/58/59) I wouldn't be too disappointed.

How exactly would that be possible.

 

[VanillaCoke]

How exactly would that be possible.

Trade them to teams who have two 2nds....?

 

[Ho Borvat]

How exactly would that be possible.

Trade them to teams who have two 2nds....?

Random Examples:
Hamhuis to Washington for 2016 2nd + 2017 2nd
Vrbata to Pittsburgh for 2016 2nd + 2016 2nd (Anaheim)

Montreal is also an option.

My overall argument is, getting a 1st would be nice... but I would almost prefer just getting a couple 2nd rounders for each of them and hoping Jimbo can unearth some gems in the 2nd round. Load up on top-60 picks.

 

[MikeK]

Disappointment is my prediction

 

[DL44]

In a world in which Glencross brought back a 2nd and 3rd..... something something

 

[PM]

Expect disappointment. Massive, massive disappointment.

 

[TraderJim]

Disappointment is my prediction

Hmmm... I was leaning towards this but...

Expect disappointment. Massive, massive disappointment.

I think it will be this.

 

[MS]

Expect disappointment. Massive, massive disappointment.

Pretty much.

Benning can neither negotiate nor evaluate talent, and this is a combination of both. Will not turn out well.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Random Examples:
Hamhuis to Washington for 2016 2nd + 2017 2nd
Vrbata to Pittsburgh for 2016 2nd + 2016 2nd (Anaheim)

Montreal is also an option.

My overall argument is, getting a 1st would be nice... but I would almost prefer just getting a couple 2nd rounders for each of them and hoping Jimbo can unearth some gems in the 2nd round. Load up on top-60 picks.

Given our rebuild I'd rather have 4 seconds and swing for the fences.

 

[DL44]

I kinda predict the team will go on a run after the break which will stifle Benning from pulling the trigger on a Vrbata deal.

I don't think it would effect a Hamhuis deal from happening tho.
I consider him to be the better trade chip anyways.

Prust will be moved. Retain cap to make it happen.

Don't think Higgins gets moved till the offseason.

Also would not be surprised to see Benning be a buyer for a Dman in the 20-25 yr old range.
My favorite speculative trade read was Hamhuis to Washington for picks + Bowey.

 

[Ho Borvat]

Given our rebuild I'd rather have 4 seconds and swing for the fences.

Its pretty evident that we have a huge deficiency organizationally in regards to defense prospects.

I think if they can stock up on top-60 picks, it would allow them to bolster a part of the prospect pool thats sorely lacking.

Last years 2nd round looks like it will turn out a handful of quality NHL blueliners, so I would like to see Benning give himself as many picks as possible.

 

[mathonwy]

Expect disappointment. Massive, massive disappointment.

You can't be disappointed if you don't have high expectations in the first place!

 

[VanJack]

I kinda predict the team will go on a run after the break which will stifle Benning from pulling the trigger on a Vrbata deal.

I don't think it would effect a Hamhuis deal from happening tho.
I consider him to be the better trade chip anyways.

Prust will be moved. Retain cap to make it happen.

Don't think Higgins gets moved till the offseason.

Also would not be surprised to see Benning be a buyer for a Dman in the 20-25 yr old range.
My favorite speculative trade read was Hamhuis to Washington for picks + Bowey.

Yes, depressingly, this is the likely outcome of the trade deadline...Benning will refuse to pull the trigger on deals for Hamhuis, Vrbata and Prust, and they all walk in the off-season for nothing....and meanwhile the team goes on a min-run and finishes ninth in the conference which gives them the 14th selection in the draft....mediocrity times two.

 

[DL44]

Yes, depressingly, this is the likely outcome of the trade deadline...Benning will refuse to pull the trigger on deals for Hamhuis, Vrbata and Prust, and they all walk in the off-season for nothing....and meanwhile the team goes on a min-run and finishes ninth in the conference which gives them the 14th selection in the draft....mediocrity times two.

Looking at the post you quoted and then your response... it looks like you only read the first line. heh heh

 

[Tryamkin]

I'm having trouble understanding why Hamhuis' value will not be higher than it is now.

He's finishing up two very mediocre seasons, in both of which he was injury plagued. He's presently injured and might or might not make it back much before the trade deadline. If he makes it back by then he might or might not be up to speed and so his effectiveness is in issue. He's on an expiring contract.

So the team looking at him is looking at a 33 year old rental whose play has fallen off and who is coming off an injury, whose level of play during the rental period (i.e. trade deadline to end of season) is far from certain.

I find it hard to imagine Hammer's value getting any lower than it is now. Am I missing something?

Maybe somebody that Hamhuis would waive for will be willing to overlook all of that on the basis that he might return to something approaching past form. Otoh, his trade value may be small and the cost of extending him might not be prohibitive. Certainly the Canucks' ranks are not overflowing with top 4 defencemen.

Also, the elephant nobody is mentioning is his full ntc. If he is asked to move for a three month period, why would he waive to uproot or move away from his wife and school-aged children? I could see it happening if he knew the acquiring team would give him an extension, but otherwise can't see why he would consider it.

I'm not pretending to know what will happen. It just seems to me that Hamhuis' trade value right now is lower than it would normally be expected to be and might, just might, be less than the chance that he is healthy and effective for a couple of years starting next season. Between that and his ntc imo there is a reasonable chance of him not being traded.

Many possibilities can happen.

1. Setback
2. Re Injury
3. Not the same as before
4. Market for defenseman not being as competitive as expected

 

[Bettman Returnz]

Chris Higgins- Islanders or Capitals
Alex Burrows-Stays
Dan Hamhuis- Nashville or Dallas
Radim Vrbata-Montreal or Pittsburgh
Brandon Prust- Montreal or Ottawa
Ryan Miller-Stays
Alex Edler-Stays
Chris Tanev-Stays

 

[PM]

You can't be disappointed if you don't have high expectations in the first place!

Very true, unfortunately at the beginning of the year this was one of the three events I was excited for this year.

1. Our prospects at the WJC - extremely disappointing
2. Dealing dead weight for picks at the TDL - expecting more disappointment
3. Having more than our usual 7 picks at the draft - not likely

 

[Tryamkin]

1) Honestly, if we could get 2 2nds for Hamhuis/Vrbata each (So 4 total... and assuming they were higher 2nds, and not picks 56/57/58/59) I wouldn't be too disappointed. If we had 4 2nd round picks in last years drafts there were a lot of quality prospects to be had. If you could land 3-4 d-men in the 2nd round it would really bolster our d-prospects.

Just using generic examples, but if we had 4 picks in the 2nd round last year we could have gone something like:
- Dermott, Carlo, Kylington, Bracco and really bolstered our pool.

I haven't done a ton of research into this year, but I like the idea of stocking up on d-men.

2-4) Agree

2nd round looks very promising for D-men.

Sean Day, Markus Niemelainen, Kale Clague, Libor Hajek, and Luke Green are the stand outs for me. Antoher LW would be nice too. One or two of Shink/Baertschi/Etem are probably not gonna pan out.

 

[iceburg]

I'm having trouble understanding why Hamhuis' value will not be higher than it is now.

He's finishing up two very mediocre seasons, in both of which he was injury plagued. He's presently injured and might or might not make it back much before the trade deadline. If he makes it back by then he might or might not be up to speed and so his effectiveness is in issue. He's on an expiring contract.

So the team looking at him is looking at a 33 year old rental whose play has fallen off and who is coming off an injury, whose level of play during the rental period (i.e. trade deadline to end of season) is far from certain.

I find it hard to imagine Hammer's value getting any lower than it is now. Am I missing something?

Maybe somebody that Hamhuis would waive for will be willing to overlook all of that on the basis that he might return to something approaching past form. Otoh, his trade value may be small and the cost of extending him might not be prohibitive. Certainly the Canucks' ranks are not overflowing with top 4 defencemen.

Also, the elephant nobody is mentioning is his full ntc. If he is asked to move for a three month period, why would he waive to uproot or move away from his wife and school-aged children? I could see it happening if he knew the acquiring team would give him an extension, but otherwise can't see why he would consider it.

I'm not pretending to know what will happen. It just seems to me that Hamhuis' trade value right now is lower than it would normally be expected to be and might, just might, be less than the chance that he is healthy and effective for a couple of years starting next season. Between that and his ntc imo there is a reasonable chance of him not being traded.

You answered your own question to some extent. Hamhuis is 33 and he's on an expiring contract. His play has fallen off dramatically, yes, but there can be no reasonable expectation it will get better. He had a great WC last year. Contract status = low risk acquisition. Age and recent play on the decline but WC proves he can still play. He will not have greater value in the future compared to now.

 

[Ho Borvat]

2nd round looks very promising for D-men.

Sean Day, Markus Niemelainen, Kale Clague, Libor Hajek, and Luke Green are the stand outs for me. Antoher LW would be nice too. One or two of Shink/Baertschi/Etem are probably not gonna pan out.

Even looking at last year, there was tonnes of d-men projected to go in the mid-late first round that were available in the 2nd round (Carlo, Dermott, Kylington for example).

D Prospects are our biggest weakness, and I think the best solution to this would be to stockpile picks in around that top-60 range and hope Benning can get a few hits.

 

[Wildcarder]

Prediction:

We trade a 2nd round pick for a struggling prospect...

...and somehow Luca Sbisa gets another 4-year extension.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

I think we see Vrbata and Prust moved and nothing else of substance unless we mange to unload Higgins with salary retained. Ownership remains committed to making the playoffs so I think that probably takes other moves like Hamhuis off the table.

 

[me2]

Given our rebuild I'd rather have 4 seconds and swing for the fences.

I'd rather a 20s pick than two in the late 50s.

 

[Nucker101]

Chris Higgins- staying
Alex Burrows- staying
Dan Hamhuis- staying
Radim Vrbata- staying
Brandon Prust- Washington for a 7th round pick
Ryan Miller- staying
Alex Edler- staying
Chris Tanev- staying

Agreed.

Maybe moves Vrbata out East for a toolsy prospect who's in the AHL/NHL with + pick to justify it as a "hockey deal" that can still help the team this year.

 

[Skirbs1011]

I am kind of surprised more people dont see Chicago as a possible landing spot for Hamhuis.

They Usually ride 4 D pretty hard in the playoffs, last season they had Oduya with Hjalmarsson, Keith and Seabrook. They brought in Daley to replace Oduya and that didnt work and now have Scuderi. I cant see them being happy or confident in running Scuderi, TVR, Rozsival or Gustaffson in the #4 spot.

They are also a team who usually address there needs every deadline and fix what they need like getting Vermette and Timonen last year. Getting Timonen they also showed they are not affraid about making the right deal if they player has been injured for an extended period of time.