Prospect Info: Quinn Hughes, Pt. IV

[Breakers]

I hope he stays off the Canucks long enough so our idiots in charge don't play him over 9 games to try and make the playoffs.

Exactly.
why someone would want Michigan to lose their next game is crazy.

 

[Horse McHindu]

I hope he stays off the Canucks long enough so our idiots in charge don't play him over 9 games to try and make the playoffs.

Our “idiots” in charge wouldn’t be playing Hughes to try and make the playoffs. They would be playing Hughes because.....

1) Benning is trying to create a “player centric” environment where players are rewarded for performance and make the line up whenever THEY are ready (as opposed to when WE are ready).

2) It gives a chance for the Canucks to see where Hughes is at in his development, and how it translates to the NHL level. Who knows? Maybe Hughes comes in here like Boeser did a few years back and performs extremely well. If Hughes comes in here and proves that he’s already an NHL elite (like Pettersson), then perhaps it opens the door to letting go of Edler.

Instead of just blindly bashing Benning and management like 90% of the board, why not try and see the other side of the coin? Like REALLY understand it.

It’s entirely possible that these NHL execs are much smarter than a bunch of dudes on the internet.

 

[Horse McHindu]

So the key is he should play 9 games or less for us this year. Hopefully Coach Green does that

Playing him for 9 games and then benching him would be a dick move if Hughes proves to be an NHL caliber player right from the get go.

If Hughes is ready now and thrives when he comes here, don’t sit him after 9 games.

It’s far more important for management to show to the players that they are implementing a “player centric” approach (ie performance based rewards at all levels) rather than holding back a player for any reason.

Show players loyalty now, and perhaps they will show you loyalty later when it comes to taking a hometown discount after the ELC contract is finished.

 

[The Vasili Jerry]

So if Michigan doesn’t make it through the first round, there are 13 games left for the Canucks. How does management play it? Could play him against the Rangers at home and then sit him for 4 separate games through the other 12. Say it’s to ease him in or something like that.

 

[Breakers]

Our “idiots” in charge wouldn’t be playing Hughes to try and make the playoffs. They would be playing Hughes because.....
Instead of just blindly bashing Benning and management like 90% of the board, why not try and see the other side of the coin? Like REALLY understand it.

It’s entirely possible that these NHL execs are much smarter than a bunch of dudes on the internet.

Why dont you try to see the other side of the coin and see how stupid it could be for a shortsighted GM to have control over a prospect for 13 games when he has a strict threshold that he'll probably ignore.

 

[DownGoesMcDavid]

Are people actually worried about having to protect Hughes in 3 yrs??

I'd rather play Hughes 13 games than pull a douchebag move and bench him and strain the relationship with player and agent.

We scared to lose Hutton or Stecher in 3 yrs ?? Newsflash they might not even be a Canuck then.

Theres literally soo many dominos in play including an expiring CBA that can flip the basis of an expansion draft into a full 180.

Just play Hughes....start the relationship right and let the chips fall.

 

[ChilliBilly]

More importantly u realize that playing 4 games means u need to protect him in the draft. For no reason. Ffs, just tell him that.

By the way I am going off other posters, hope I am correct.

 

[The Vasili Jerry]

Are people actually worried about having to protect Hughes in 3 yrs??

I'd rather play Hughes 13 games than pull a *****ebag move and bench him and strain the relationship with player and agent.

We scared to lose Hutton or Stecher in 3 yrs ?? Newsflash they might not even be a Canuck then.

Theres literally soo many dominos in play including an expiring CBA that can flip the basis of an expansion draft into a full 180.

Just play Hughes....start the relationship right and let the chips fall.

Wouldn’t it burn a year of his ELC by playing just 9 games anyway? I forget the actual rules with all that, but if that’s true then you’re still looking after the player by getting him to RFA status earlier but you’re also looking after the team by being able to protect another player. Doesn’t seem super douchey to me.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Are people actually worried about having to protect Hughes in 3 yrs??

I'd rather play Hughes 13 games than pull a *****ebag move and bench him and strain the relationship with player and agent.

We scared to lose Hutton or Stecher in 3 yrs ?? Newsflash they might not even be a Canuck then.

Theres literally soo many dominos in play including an expiring CBA that can flip the basis of an expansion draft into a full 180.

Just play Hughes....start the relationship right and let the chips fall.

@Breakers - this was more or less how I was going to respond to your post but Db88 pretty much said what I wanted to say here.

 

[me2]

Are people actually worried about having to protect Hughes in 3 yrs??

I'd rather play Hughes 13 games than pull a *****ebag move and bench him and strain the relationship with player and agent.

We scared to lose Hutton or Stecher in 3 yrs ?? Newsflash they might not even be a Canuck then.

Theres literally soo many dominos in play including an expiring CBA that can flip the basis of an expansion draft into a full 180.

Just play Hughes....start the relationship right and let the chips fall.

It isn't about Hutton or Stecher, at least one of those is getting exposed anyway. It is about flexibility with UFAs and Juolevi. Tanev needs a deal, Edler needs a deal, both will push for NMCs. Any big name UFA is getting a NMC, they don't want to get used expansion bait either. Let's say (dream scenario) Karlsson/UFA (NMC) + Hughes + Edler/UFA with NMC. Juolevi, Hutton, Stecher are fodder. One of Hughes or Juolevi is gone at the expansion draft IMHO if they try and fix the defence, if they haven't been traded first.

 

[Breakers]

@Breakers - this was more or less how I was going to respond to your post but Db88 pretty much said what I wanted to say here.

and that's shortsighted thinking.

 

[me2]

Playing him for 9 games and then benching him would be a dick move if Hughes proves to be an NHL caliber player right from the get go.

If Hughes is ready now and thrives when he comes here, don’t sit him after 9 games.

It’s far more important for management to show to the players that they are implementing a “player centric” approach (ie performance based rewards at all levels) rather than holding back a player for any reason.

Show players loyalty now, and perhaps they will show you loyalty later when it comes to taking a hometown discount after the ELC contract is finished.

The Emperor's new coin.

 

[Horse McHindu]

and that's shortsighted thinking.

I don’t think it is.

Show loyalty to Hughes now, and perhaps he’ll show it to us later.

Show loyalty to Hughes right now and ingrain it in him that we have his best interests at heart. It’s little things like this that might sway him to take a hometown discount when his ELC expires.

Guys like Boeser, Pettersson, and Hughes are a part of our current and future core. Getting them to take hometown discounts is absolutely key.

If we have one less player that we can protect, so be it.

 

[Breakers]

I don’t think it is.

Show loyalty to Hughes now, and perhaps he’ll show it to us later.

Show loyalty to Hughes right now and ingrain it in him that we have his best interests at heart. It’s little things like this that might sway him to take a hometown discount when his ELC expires.

You can't seriously be this Naive?

 

[Blue and Green]

It isn't about Hutton or Stecher, at least one of those is getting exposed anyway. It is about flexibility with UFAs and Juolevi. Tanev needs a deal, Edler needs a deal, both will push for NMCs. Any big name UFA is getting a NMC, they don't want to get used expansion bait either. Let's say (dream scenario) Karlsson/UFA (NMC) + Hughes + Edler/UFA with NMC. Juolevi, Hutton, Stecher are fodder. One of Hughes or Juolevi is gone at the expansion draft IMHO if they try and fix the defence, if they haven't been traded first.

I'd be shocked if Edler gets a no-movement clause for the third year. It would make no sense for the Canucks to do that.

 

[Horse McHindu]

You can't seriously be this Naive?

I didn’t say, “show Hughes loyalty now and he WILL show us loyalty later.”

I said, “show Hughes loyalty now and PERHAPS he will show loyalty later.”

No guarantees obviously, but I think it atleast opens that possibility. Win now. Make bank later. That’s what the players on Chicago and LA did.

If you stiff arm Hughes now however, then I think the idea of him showing loyalty in return becomes close to zero.

 

[Blue and Green]

Are people actually worried about having to protect Hughes in 3 yrs??

I'd rather play Hughes 13 games than pull a *****ebag move and bench him and strain the relationship with player and agent.

We scared to lose Hutton or Stecher in 3 yrs ?? Newsflash they might not even be a Canuck then.

Theres literally soo many dominos in play including an expiring CBA that can flip the basis of an expansion draft into a full 180.

Just play Hughes....start the relationship right and let the chips fall.

Expansion draft is only two years away, not three.

If they sign him immediately, his ELC burns a year and he is paid his salary, whether he plays or sits. Why exactly would he and his agent have a huge problem with the team keeping him out of a few games for its long-term interest?

Potentially losing a solid player for the sake of playing a newly signed rookie in a couple of extra games at the end of a lost season is a negative risk-reward scenario.

The expansion draft rules have already been agreed upon by the parties.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Maybe it’s just me, but I think if......

1) Pettersson and Hughes’ ELC’s expire at the same time.

2) The Canucks don’t go ‘nuts’ on a huge free agent signing (ie Karlsson or Panarin at 11-12 million)

then maybe....just maybe, you can get “buy in” from both Pettersson and Hughes to take hometown discounts (to what degree I don’t know) so that the Canucks can build a winner.

I’m very interested to see what Carolina’s Sebastian Aho gets in this off season. Guys like Teuravanien and Pesce are on sweetheart deals over there. Nashville got a sweetheart deal out of Viktor Arvidsson.

Getting ‘buy in’ from players isn’t likely or easy, but it’s not impossible either. Schiefele in Winnipeg is another example.

 

[TryamkinPleaseReturn]

You can't seriously be this Naive?

Don't you remember, like the hometown discounts we got from Gudbranson and Sutter. And because we are such a player friendly organization we also got those incredible discounts from Eriksson and Miller and Gagner. What can we say, players just want to play for this franchise, and they'll take enormous discounts to play for Benning's team - provided he continues handing over managerial power to the players to decide what they want to do.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Why exactly would he and his agent have a huge problem with the team keeping him out of a few games for its long-term interest?

Because - Hughes would have to wait an extra year to potentially get paid big money.

IF Hughes comes into the lineup and March and is flourishing (like Boeser did when he came here), then it’s an injustice to the player to stiff arm him when he reaches the maximum number of games.

Showing fairness is paramount here. If Hughes is already an elite player when he comes in, you let him play the whole season. If his game still needs some work however, and he’s not quite ready for the NHL level, then you cap his number of games.

Fairness is the key.

 

[Cancuks]

Why is anyone worried about losing an important piece of the roster when there aren't even 8 players worth protecting? Edler will likely get a two year deal, Tanev will be traded next deadline as will Markstrom. Only players worth protecting are Pettersson, Horvat, Boeser, Gaudette, Virtanen & Stecher. Demko as the goaltender. Who cares if we lose Ben Hutton or Roussel or even Juolevi who I don't have much hope for.

 

[Blue and Green]

Because - Hughes would have to wait an extra year to potentially get paid big money.

IF Hughes comes into the lineup and March and is flourishing (like Boeser did when he came here), then it’s an injustice to the player to stiff arm him when he reaches the maximum number of games.

Showing fairness is paramount here. If Hughes is already an elite player when he comes in, you let him play the whole season. If his game still needs some work however, and he’s not quite ready for the NHL level, then you cap his number of games.

Fairness is the key.

His ELC burns a year as soon as he signs a standard player contract that is effective for this season, regardless of how many games he plays.

 

[Breakers]

I didn’t say, “show Hughes loyalty now and he WILL show us loyalty later.”

I said, “show Hughes loyalty now and PERHAPS he will show loyalty later.”

No guarantees obviously, but I think it atleast opens that possibility. Win now. Make bank later. That’s what the players on Chicago and LA did.

If you stiff arm Hughes now however, then I think the idea of him showing loyalty in return becomes close to zero.

Right........ I'm sure his agent and him will go into his first real contract negotiation with the thought of how nice vancouver was to get him those 3 or 4 extra games, and not on the money.

Funny Zack Werenski, Kyle Connor, and Dylan Larkin were also recent Wolverine alumni and neither seemed to have a fractured relationship with the fact that none of those teams wanted to cater to everything the prospect wanted, and none of those teams burned a year off their deals even though they were eliminated early in the season.

 

[TryamkinPleaseReturn]

We scared to lose Hutton or Stecher in 3 yrs ?? Newsflash they might not even be a Canuck then.

That's one possibility. Here's another. Our long-term thinking GM gives Edler a 3 year contract with a NMC. Hutton and Stetcher turn into 1st pairing d-men. Tryamkin returns and looks better than we expected. Because we played Hughes those 9 games, we end up losing Hughes (or Tryamkin. Or Juolevi. It's Seattle's choice which of the three is best at this point). So because we let Hughes decide when he wants to burn a year off his contract, because we want Hughes to be with Vancouver long term, we lose him to Seattle and neither the team nor Hughes get what they want.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Don't you remember, like the hometown discounts we got from Gudbranson and Sutter. And because we are such a player friendly organization we also got those incredible discounts from Eriksson and Miller and Gagner. What can we say, players just want to play for this franchise, and they'll take enormous discounts to play for Benning's team - provided he continues handing over managerial power to the players to decide what they want to do.

Completely apples and oranges situations.

When those players signed with us, the Canucks were transitioning for their old core to their new one. We were a bottom feeding team that was still trending downwards. Of course you will have to pay a premium for UFA’s at that stage.

When a team starts trending upwards however, and a new core has been established, THEN you can start flirting with the idea of “buy in.”

That’s why I think it’s so important to....

1) Establish a new core
2) Get new core to ‘buy in.’
3) Sign UFA’s to discounts once the first two steps have been taken care of.

In our case, we are now on be verge of completing step one. Our new core is clearly Horvat, Boeser, Pettersson, and likely Hughes. Many of those ELC contracts will expire just as some of those ‘placeholder’ contracts (Sutter, etc) will come off the books and/or be moved (Eriksson).

IF you can get guys like Pettersson, Boeser, and Hughes to take discounts of some kind, then you’ll be far more likely to attract UFA’s that would be willing to take discounts to play for a winner as well.

This is what Chicago did. Guys like Toews, Kane, Seabrook, and Keith signed sweetheart deals when their ELC’s expired, and this paved the way for a guy like Hossa to sign a discount with the expectation that he’d be playing for a winner.

1) Get buy in from new core.
2) Get good
3) Bring in UFA’s that would be willing to take a discount.

That was the Chicago and LA model.