Prospect Info: Quinn Hughes, Pt. IV

Status
Not open for further replies.

sting101

Registered User
Feb 8, 2012
15,707
14,508
Lol, who gives a **** about the team Gillis inherited at this point.

Burning a year off ELCs is pretty standard stuff these days. That's not even considering the point Hughes will make us better immediately, even if just from an entertainment/interest pov. No GM is going to squabble over a year of an ELC with a prospect as important to the future of the organization as Hughes is. Cept maybe Brian Burke.
Yep and what do they think they are gonna do...shut him down for the year after Michigans season is done? Send him to the minors when he can skate circles around every single one of our defenseman. :help:
 

JanBulisPiggyBack

Registered User
Dec 31, 2011
3,839
2,719
How’s about sign him and play him 9 games, spending time in the press box isn’t gonna kill him, let him play, practice and br part of the big club, if we make the playoffs then fine he will play otherwise let the plug be pulled on this season and just position yourself to be better next year
 
  • Like
Reactions: zcaptain

bossram

Registered User
Sep 25, 2013
15,324
14,389
Victoria
Yep and what do they think they are gonna do...shut him down for the year after Michigans season is done? Send him to the minors when he can skate circles around every single one of our defenseman. :help:

Columbus did that with Werenski and seemed to work out just fine. I don't think it would be a bad move.

I'm not at all against Hughes getting to Vancouver. But they need to be wary about him playing more than 10 games, because then he will be required to be protected in the expansion draft.
 

Josepho

i want the bartkowski thread back
Jan 1, 2015
14,762
8,234
British Columbia
My guess is that he'll sign the contract on ~March 10th and then join the team but miss the first game against the Rangers on the 13th.

After that there are 12 games remaining. It shouldn't be hard to get him to sit for a few especially considering he's not accustomed to an NHL schedule.

If we make the playoffs though we can go ahead and play him f*** the 9 game thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lindgren

Lemmiwinks

Registered User
Jun 11, 2011
2,039
718
B.C.
A team fighting for a wild card in a VERY weak year probably ain't going to be losing a player of much consequence. Let the kid play

It's bad logic though imo. A team fighting for a wild card in a very weak division can't afford to throw away assets for no reason.
 

Phenomenon13

Registered User
Oct 10, 2011
2,479
496
We have a drafting guru. Don't need extra picks or assets. Seriously though, I don't think it'll be much of an issue for us (expansion draft).

I agree we don't have the assets for the expansion draft to set us back unless Benning protects the wrong guy. We at most will lose a middle six player.

Hughes is definitely safe and our d core is trash so I doubt we will lose anything of significance
 

Pip

Registered User
Feb 2, 2012
69,164
8,461
Granduland
I'd protect Hughes Hutton and Stecher. I'm going to guess Juolevi will be claimed since Edler and tanev are going to be severely declined by the expansion draft.

I imagine Edler is going to have to be protected in the expansion draft with his new contract.
 
Feb 19, 2018
2,591
1,753
We will do what we did last expansion draft and make trades in order to protect certain players.
Pretty sure Hansen was moved for this specific reason instead of losing him for nothing.
 

ginner classic

Dammit Jim!
Mar 4, 2002
10,634
934
Douglas Park
We will do what we did last expansion draft and make trades in order to protect certain players.
Pretty sure Hansen was moved for this specific reason instead of losing him for nothing.

What kind of an idiot would intentionally elect to lose their 4th best D rather than their 5th best to get an extra 3 games out of a raw rookie in what will likely be a lost season? Jim Benning is such a moron.
 

1440

Registered User
Feb 20, 2013
475
969
What kind of an idiot would intentionally elect to lose their 4th best D rather than their 5th best to get an extra 3 games out of a raw rookie in what will likely be a lost season? Jim Benning is such a moron.

Benning has only said that he is not worried about him playing too many games to have protection not be an issue.
That is vastly different than saying he doesn't care about him playing too many games.

It is laughable (almost to the point of absurdity) that so many people here simply assume that him saying the former means that he believes the latter.

What is far, far more likely is that he knows something more about the situation that leads to his lack of worry.
This could simply be that he expects QH not to sign for another week or so after his NCAA season ends, or that he expects him to practice with the team for a week before playing, thus leaving fewer NHL games for him to play, or maybe that a schedule wherein QH sits for various games has already been cooked up. Or that one of the million other simple workarounds has been concocted.
Or even... gasp! That he views the possibility of losing a player as less relevant than the possibility of having QH on the team.

Take care not to spew the "our GM is a moron" rhetoric into such hyperbole. It belongs to a category of argument that only works in moderation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->