Facing Off: Debating All Things Canucks!

[Larry Fisher]

This week's Facing Off column with Colton Davies is all about the Canucks — from their trade-deadline inactivity to their future. We debate re-signing Dan Hamhuis, trading the Sedins, the goaltending and coaching situations, whether a full rebuild is needed, whether Jonathan Drouin is worth targeting, whether Hunter Shinkaruk will come back to haunt them, and whether Vancouver can win with a roster full of former Medicine Hat Tigers. Oh yeah, and who's this Nikita Tryamkin kid?

http://thehockeywriters.com/facing-off-how-about-those-canucks/

Click to read more...

 

[Larry Fisher]

Your thoughts? It's a long read, but I'm always interested in hearing different fan opinions and debating.

 

[Win One Before I Die]

I'd take Crawford back over WD in a heart beat.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

I stopped reading at “drawing comparisons to Zdeno Chara. “

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Thoughts:

--the only person who was seriously comparing Tryamkin to Chara was just a troll and someone's second account. He's banned now.

--no way in hell should we trade Horvat for Drouin.

--fans will stay away for a rebuild, but they're also going to stay away for perpetual mediocrity. The longer they try to prop up the corpse of 2011, the less interest they'll generate. Ownership has to bite the bullet and commit to building a real contender, not a team that's just good enough to eke into the playoffs just to get stomped by a real contender. And interest will continue to decline until that happens.

--Hamhuis, Vrbata and other should have absolutely been traded at the deadline. Benning royally boned that opportunity. It's become not a case of what our players are objectively worth, it's become what Benning can get for them. And with every transaction the answer seems to be not bloody much. You're going into the trade deadline with a legit top 4 dman for sale and you get...nothing at all? Complete failure.

--which is also where we're at reassembling the Medicine Hat Tigers. The only players Benning seems to be able to get these days are the spare pieces that aren't good enough to stick anywhere else. Sure, Gillis liked his bargain bin shopping, but at least he didn't think he was acquiring front line talent that way. Granlund for Shinkaruk is a perfect example of Benning: trade young, scoring winger on his way up in the organization because they arbitrarily decided he's not NHL material for a slightly older centre who can't establish himself in Calgary and isn't waiver immune. So when everyone's healthy and if he needs to be sent down, we risk losing him for nothing. If he sucks, why did we lose Shinkaruk for him?

etc etc etc

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

--Hamhuis, Vrbata and other should have absolutely been traded at the deadline. Benning royally boned that opportunity. It's become not a case of what our players are objectively worth, it's become what Benning can get for them. And with every transaction the answer seems to be not bloody much. You're going into the trade deadline with a legit top 4 dman for sale and you get...nothing at all? Complete failure.

Here is my issue trading Hamhuis for essentially a "bag of pucks," if that's all that's being offered. It makes us look incredibly weak at negotiation. Yeah, yeah, Benning already sucks at it. Then why advocate exacerbating the perception just to say "looky guys! I got something!" Let's face it, Hamhuis didn't want to leave and Benning decided it was better to allow him to stay where he's comfortable than have him reluctantly gifted to another team for pennies on the dollar. I also find the article slighting Subban for even a 7th spot absolutely absurd. He's not even close to shifting the NHL at this stage.

As for Vrbata. Do people think other teams aren't paying attention to his season? We do nothing but complain how dreadful he's been, yet somehow he's suddenly worth a 2nd? He's been borderline Alexander Semin bad-- a guy who cleared waivers. In today's NHL, if you're a one-dimensional wingers, you either need consistency or score in large bursts. If I'm the Chicago's or the Washington's of the world, I look at Vrbata and think, "Eh, we probably have a rookie who would play better than he has lately."

 

[Wilch]

Here is my issue trading Hamhuis for essentially a "bag of pucks," if that's all that's being offered. It makes us look incredibly weak at negotiation. Yeah, yeah, Benning already sucks at it. Then why advocate exacerbating the perception just to say "looky guys! I got something!" Let's face it, Hamhuis didn't want to leave and Benning decided it was better to allow him to stay where he's comfortable than have him reluctantly gifted to another team for pennies on the dollar. I also find the article slighting Subban for even a 7th spot absolutely absurd. He's not even close to shifting the NHL at this stage.

As for Vrbata. Do people think other teams aren't paying attention to his season? We do nothing but complain how dreadful he's been, yet somehow he's suddenly worth a 2nd? He's been borderline Alexander Semin bad-- a guy who cleared waivers. In today's NHL, if you're a one-dimensional wingers, you either need consistency or score in large bursts. If I'm the Chicago's or the Washington's of the world, I look at Vrbata and think, "Eh, we probably have a rookie who would play better than he has lately."

1. That's like saying "because I'm awful at cooking, I refuse to make any food for myself and I'll just starve to death."

2. They **** the bed by not pumping Vrbata's value & worse players were traded for picks.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

1. That's like saying "because I'm awful at cooking, I refuse to make any food for myself and I'll just starve to death."

2. They **** the bed by not pumping Vrbata's value & worse players were traded for picks.

No it's not. It's announcing to the world you are so desperate for an asset, you'll literally take anything offered. When you attempt to negotiate the next time, everyone is going to hardball you because they know you'll eventually just cave.

Once again, you're acting like other GMs do not scout the Canucks. Putting Vrbata with the Sedins won't magically make him any better, especially since we have and he's sucked. The guy had one friggin' on a line with two kids who managed twelve. There is no way to "pump his value" when GMs have that to draw back on.

And? Teams acquire different types of players to suit different roles. Weise or Polak may be inferior players, however if you're only aiming to fill a depth position, then you'd rather them over Vrbata, who would failure miserably. The irony, of course, is Weise has been better this season. That's just ****ing sad.

 

[Wilch]

No it's not. It's announcing to the world you are so desperate for an asset, you'll literally take anything offered. When you attempt to negotiate the next time, everyone is going to hardball you because they know you'll eventually just cave.

Once again, you're acting like other GMs do not scout the Canucks. Putting Vrbata with the Sedins won't magically make him any better, especially since we have and he's sucked. The guy had one friggin' on a line with two kids who managed twelve. There is no way to "pump his value" when GMs have that to draw back on.

And? Teams acquire different types of players to suit different roles. Weise or Polak may be inferior players, however if you're only aiming to fill a depth position, then you'd rather them over Vrbata, who would failure miserably. The irony, of course, is Weise has been better this season. That's just ****ing sad.

So when Jimbo hands out assets like free candy, they're worthless plugs with no future. When he doesn't do it, he's being a hardball negotiator.

Sounds totally reasonable to me.

And no GM of a playoff team with reasonable cap space to work with will pass on Vrbata for a few mid/late picks.

Any additional help and insurance for the playoffs is welcomed by contending teams.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

So when Jimbo hands out assets like free candy, they're worthless plugs with no future. When he doesn't do it, he's being a hardball negotiator.

Sounds totally reasonable to me.

And no GM of a playoff team with reasonable cap space to work with will pass on Vrbata for a few mid/late picks.

Any additional help and insurance for the playoffs is welcomed by contending teams.

Maybe it would if you weren't strawmanning. Trading a 5th is not remotely comparable to just accepting whatever deal you get for a key asset. That pick is little more than a gamble, whereas Hamhuis is a core player. Say we later want to move Edler. Why would Dallas bother to offer Honka when they now know Benning will cave? People put way too much value on picks outside the first two rounds. They don't mean much, which is why you often see them bounced around. Furthermore, I never said it made Benning look like a hardball, just not a complete pushover. Perception is important in business, which is essentially what this side of the NHL is. If your opposition thinks they can take advantage of you, they will.

Oh? Then why did Semin and Kassian clear waivers? How about Derek Roy, who had a terrific second half of a season in Edmonton not even getting a contract offer? Teams are looking for specific needs or to find a fit. That doesn't mean they'll just take any old player just because they're available.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Here is my issue trading Hamhuis for essentially a "bag of pucks," if that's all that's being offered. It makes us look incredibly weak at negotiation. Yeah, yeah, Benning already sucks at it. Then why advocate exacerbating the perception just to say "looky guys! I got something!" Let's face it, Hamhuis didn't want to leave and Benning decided it was better to allow him to stay where he's comfortable than have him reluctantly gifted to another team for pennies on the dollar. I also find the article slighting Subban for even a 7th spot absolutely absurd. He's not even close to shifting the NHL at this stage.

As for Vrbata. Do people think other teams aren't paying attention to his season? We do nothing but complain how dreadful he's been, yet somehow he's suddenly worth a 2nd? He's been borderline Alexander Semin bad-- a guy who cleared waivers. In today's NHL, if you're a one-dimensional wingers, you either need consistency or score in large bursts. If I'm the Chicago's or the Washington's of the world, I look at Vrbata and think, "Eh, we probably have a rookie who would play better than he has lately."

Speaking of strawmen, I never said anything about trading Hamhuis for "a bag of pucks" nor did I say we should have unloaded those players for just anything.

What I'm saying is: look at what Calgary got for Russel. That's what a competent GM can swing. Fine, Hamhuis didn't do us any favours by basically saying he would have been strictly a rental player, but he was still the best UFA dman on the market. Hell, Schultz with 50% retained got a 3rd and he's not a tenth as good as Hamhuis. We don't just look incredibly weak at negotiation, hello! We are. This is Benning's legacy of handing away value and picks with every trade. Vrbata hit 30 goals last season; after one down year when he rarely if ever sees icetime with the guys he had the most success with, his value is zero? I'm not buying it for a second. I think word's gotten around and the book on Benning is just to stupidly lowball him. And the non-deals we're seeing from him are the result.

Oh, and the article itself basically rehashes every argument we've been having for the last two weeks.

 

[northwestern comfort]

Maybe it would if you weren't strawmanning. Trading a 5th is not remotely comparable to just accepting whatever deal you get for a key asset. That pick is little more than a gamble, whereas Hamhuis is a core player. Say we later want to move Edler. Why would Dallas bother to offer Honka when they now know Benning will cave? People put way too much value on picks outside the first two rounds. They don't mean much, which is why you often see them bounced around. Furthermore, I never said it made Benning look like a hardball, just not a complete pushover. Perception is important in business, which is essentially what this side of the NHL is. If your opposition thinks they can take advantage of you, they will.

Oh? Then why did Semin and Kassian clear waivers? How about Derek Roy, who had a terrific second half of a season in Edmonton not even getting a contract offer? Teams are looking for specific needs or to find a fit. That doesn't mean they'll just take any old player just because they're available.

Because Hamhuis's situation was/is not the same as Edler's. Benning had little leverage entering the negotiation (some of his own doing (not moving early enough), some of it Hamhuis' (his Vermette comments) and some of according to the situation (Dallas is a young team and will have plenty of shots at the Cup in the next few years). Perception is important, but I doubt failing to move Hamhuis makes Benning look stronger in negotiations. His failure has turned up the heat on him, and even though other GM's might see that he's not a complete fool and he's willing to call a bluff (at his own expense so far), they can certainly see that he's at a disadvantage because of the pressure on him to make a move that's seen generally as a success. The perception might not be that he's bad negotiator now (I would disagree with that assessment), but there is certainly a perception of weakness because of the situation in Vancouver.

I honestly felt bad for Benning at the deadline. People definitely expected too much. If he had accepted even the Russell deal, he probably would have been pilloried here. What I'm starting to find interesting is that people praise and blame Benning for his "decisiveness"— that he goes out and gets the player he wants — but I think the problem is his indecisiveness. The idea of "retool" (owner mandated or not) has put him in a position where he can't seem to make a decision with a clear aim or focus.

 

[SgtToody]

Here is my issue trading Hamhuis for essentially a "bag of pucks," if that's all that's being offered. It makes us look incredibly weak at negotiation. Yeah, yeah, Benning already sucks at it. Then why advocate exacerbating the perception just to say "looky guys! I got something!" Let's face it, Hamhuis didn't want to leave and Benning decided it was better to allow him to stay where he's comfortable than have him reluctantly gifted to another team for pennies on the dollar."

Unfortunately, based on Benning's past trades, the horse has left the barn on this theory. Garrison for a 2nd rounder? He broadcasted that Lack was worth a 2nd rounder (perhaps, but an early one) then settled for a middling 3rd? The Clendinning deal which turned into zip, and having to add draft picks in swaps for Prust and Sutter? Let's not mention Shinkaruk anymore, as it's depressing...Opposing GMs already see Benning for the lousy trade evaluator and desperate horse trader, so don't all of a sudden cry foul that Dallas was trying to lowball him with that late offer. Benning had already inflicted his crummy reputation beforehand, and Nill was just seeing where the floor is...

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Speaking of strawmen, I never said anything about trading Hamhuis for "a bag of pucks" nor did I say we should have unloaded those players for just anything.

What I'm saying is: look at what Calgary got for Russel. That's what a competent GM can swing. Fine, Hamhuis didn't do us any favours by basically saying he would have been strictly a rental player, but he was still the best UFA dman on the market. Hell, Schultz with 50% retained got a 3rd and he's not a tenth as good as Hamhuis. We don't just look incredibly weak at negotiation, hello! We are. This is Benning's legacy of handing away value and picks with every trade. Vrbata hit 30 goals last season; after one down year when he rarely if ever sees icetime with the guys he had the most success with, his value is zero? I'm not buying it for a second. I think word's gotten around and the book on Benning is just to stupidly lowball him. And the non-deals we're seeing from him are the result.

Oh, and the article itself basically rehashes every argument we've been having for the last two weeks.

You didn't, however the article and many members on this board did.

And we were offered that. Dallas decided to take Russell over Hamhuis instead, likely because they knew he was purely a rental, whereas they could possibly retain Russell on a long term basis. They later circled back and offered an equivalent "bag of pucks." So, should we have just taken that and said thank you?

Vrbata's usage would be a criticism of Willie, not Benning. Regardless, I didn't find him that great with the Sedins. In short bursts, yes, he had moments, but their line as a whole struggle defensively because Vrbata is downright worthless at any other aspect of the game. And it isn't as though Willie put him with cast offs. How did Horvat and Baertschi manage twelve points together, yet Vrbata couldn't get more than two with them? He also played the powerplay a ton on their line and sucked. The simple fact is he's having an awful season and I'd rather either leave Hansen with the Sedins to see whether their chemistry will build into another Burrows line of old or possibly move Virtanen up. Either of those scenarios are better than a third or fourth for Vrbata.

Because Hamhuis's situation was/is not the same as Edler's. Benning had little leverage entering the negotiation (some of his own doing (not moving early enough), some of it Hamhuis' (his Vermette comments) and some of according to the situation (Dallas is a young team and will have plenty of shots at the Cup in the next few years). Perception is important, but I doubt failing to move Hamhuis makes Benning look stronger in negotiations. His failure has turned up the heat on him, and even though other GM's might see that he's not a complete fool and he's willing to call a bluff (at his own expense so far), they can certainly see that he's at a disadvantage because of the pressure on him to make a move that's seen generally as a success. The perception might not be that he's bad negotiator now (I would disagree with that assessment), but there is certainly a perception of weakness because of the situation in Vancouver.

I honestly felt bad for Benning at the deadline. People definitely expected too much. If he had accepted even the Russell deal, he probably would have been pilloried here. What I'm starting to find interesting is that people praise and blame Benning for his "decisiveness"— that he goes out and gets the player he wants — but I think the problem is his indecisiveness. The idea of "retool" (owner mandated or not) has put him in a position where he can't seem to make a decision with a clear aim or focus.

While I don't entirely agree, I think that is a rather fair assessment. My personal take is as I mentioned above. Dallas simply made two offers-- one to us and another to Calgary -- then chose the defenseman they thought they could re-sign. If Hamhuis walks, that's when I will be far more critical. But if we get a steal of a contract signed and/or allocate our off season cap space to bringing in good assets since we didn't take on Bickell, I feel things will make more sense.

Unfortunately, based on Benning's past trades, the horse has left the barn on this theory. Garrison for a 2nd rounder? He broadcasted that Lack was worth a 2nd rounder (perhaps, but an early one) then settled for a middling 3rd? The Clendinning deal which turned into zip, and having to add draft picks in swaps for Prust and Sutter? Let's not mention Shinkaruk anymore, as it's depressing...Opposing GMs already see Benning for the lousy trade evaluator and desperate horse trader, so don't all of a sudden cry foul that Dallas was trying to lowball him with that late offer. Benning had already inflicted his crummy reputation beforehand, and Nill was just seeing where the floor is...

I never have liked trading Garrison, especially when Bieska should have gone earlier. Lack, unfortunately, just didn't have much value. He's a 28 year old backup who has yet to establish himself as a definitive starter. With how notoriously undervalued goalies are on the market, Benning announcing Lack was worth a 2nd and accepting less was likely a ploy in the hopes of creating a market that just didn't exist. We've beaten the Kassian/Prust trade to death. There were extenuating circumstances as to why that happened. Sutter has vastly outplayed Bonino despite his injuries. Let's wait to see if Shinkaruk actually does anything first.

 

[Cogburn]

So Larry loves, loves, loves, loves him some Oilers.

Tryamkin is not a Chara clone. Nor is he a Belov clone. He is a potential top four in my eyes, who could still settle in as a bottom pairing role next year. If he uses his size effectively in the NHL in terms of puck battles and clearing the crease, I could not care less about his offense, that's found money. Defensively, if he's more effective then Weber, Sbisa, Bartkowski or what ever random, horrible defender we sign this off season, that's low hanging fruit, but also a big plus.

John Shannon's line up is a nightmare. I honestly feel depressed looking at what he had up on the board, Larsen and Pedan being omitted aside.

We should have put more efford into finding a trade for Hamhuis, or at least gotten something for him. Vrbata we should have retained and traded for anything, as we have wingers out the ying-yang fighting for spots on the roster.

Horvat for Drouin would explode in our face. I see Horvat being a 50 point leader, where I could see Drouin being a 60+ winger, but his character issues thus far really put me off of him developing properly.

Shinkaruk for Granlund will, at best in my eyes, fizzle and both sides will be unhappy about it in the future. Shinkaruk still has a better chance to make a big impact on Calgary's roster, where Granlund seems to be another Vey: Not necessarily a bad player, but someone spoonfed minutes and give better linemates then they've earned, and using the slight increase in production as justification for the trade.

The other side of the questions are as to whether or not its strange to see Calgary trading with Vancouver: I think inter-division trades will be super common soon, as playing other teams twice a season means a lot of reliance on pro scouts, where I think many GMs and AGMs are looking to make assessments themselves.

I've been vocal in my dislike and distain for Desjardins and his methods. I'd love Crawford back, but I don't see him being the type of strategy we need either. AV was effective because he had the correct pieces implement his system provided. We can go back and say that if Crawford had Luongo with the WCE, we'd have been swimming in cups, but there is no way to prove it.

Everything that they discussed we've done on this boards among ourselves already, and I feel is tainted by my views concerning Benning and Co.

 

[Tiranis]

Shinkaruk for Granlund will, at best in my eyes, fizzle and both sides will be unhappy about it in the future. Shinkaruk still has a better chance to make a big impact on Calgary's roster, where Granlund seems to be another Vey: Not necessarily a bad player, but someone spoonfed minutes and give better linemates then they've earned, and using the slight increase in production as justification for the trade.

The sad part of that is that Granlund's production hasn't even improved despite being given some decent linemates to work with. Not going to make it far as an 18 point player with 1SOG per game.