TRADE or KEEP Hronek?

Would you like to trade or keep Hronek?

  • Trade

  • Keep


Results are only viewable after voting.

Green Blank Stare

Drance approved coach
May 16, 2019
1,352
1,658
Keep him assuming the contract demands aren't outrageous. Even if they are, I'd probably do arbitration and roll the dice next season since the team is in the mix right now.

He played heavy minutes all season (averaged the same as Adam Fox) and I can't think of a potential replacement.
 

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
27,220
6,934
They paid a good price to get him and knew the risks of his RFA status. The path is set. Sign him.
 

Bertuzzzi44

Registered User
Jun 26, 2018
3,688
3,430
someone needs to explain how he has fallen out of favour so quickly. Last 2 season most posters called him the steal of a trade

Very good player and was an excellent trade. Just need to use that money to fill other needs on the roster. If we didn’t have Hughes he’d be the number 1 priority. Life in the Salary Cap era, all about Cap and roster management.
 

biturbo19

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
26,275
11,381
It also depends on the open market. A right handed shot Dman is valuable. Who else is available that can replace or improve that position?

This is a really big factor in the whole thing. If you move Hronek...you have to replace him with someone at least as good, or better. Doesn't even necessarily have to be a guy to play with Hughes...where you might be able to get by for a year or two with a lesser player. But you can't downgrade the defence corps overall. Whether that's an even better partner for Hughes, or more likely...just someone you can lean on more to carry a 2nd pairing and "spread the wealth" more.

Getting good Top-4 RD is tough, and expensive.

Qualify and evaluate on a prove me deal

This seems like a pretty terrible option to me. I don't think there's any chance he actually signs that QO anyway, so you're locking yourself into arbitration where you lose control of the process...but putting Hronek on a one-year fast track to UFA just isn't going to end well, no matter what. At that point...you can "evaluate" all you want...but it pretty much guarantees he's going to be getting his $8M x 8 or whatever as a UFA next summer. Whether that's from the Canucks or some other desperate chumps.

You have to figure this out right now, this summer. One way or the other. While you still have a tiny measure of leverage with team control as an RFA.


I think the Canucks did themselves a bit of a disservice by not giving him a longer look on the 2nd pairing. Finding a good partner for Quinn Hughes is great but you need more than that if you want to sigh him for 8 years.

The team can't keep everyone so they need to prioritize the players who want to stay and are willing to show it with their salary demands. A couple of months ago Hronek was treated as the priority. That should no longer be the case - he had his chance.

The smart play is to qualify him and let the arbitration process play out. Even if it ends up being a situation where they just get him under contract for a year and he walks, at least they get a chance to delay a decision about his long term fit.

They definitely hurt their position in terms of leverage...by not taking an extended look at what Hronek can do without Hughes carrying him. It's a tough situation because he clearly fits well with Hughes and allowed him to take his game to a completely different Norris caliber level. But it's awfully hard to justify a premium price on a guy riding shotgun to a superstar like that. Without really knowing what the guy is capable of doing on his own.


The whole idea of qualifying him and going through the arbitration situation seems like a bad plan though. Even if you play it through that way and can opt for the 2 years, on the assumption that it would follow-on from player elected salary arbitration because there's no way he's signing that $5.25M QO...you're just giving up so much control in the process. The arb hearings tend to get extremely toxic as well, which probably just sours the whole relationship with the player and you're going to end up mutually wanting to part ways in the near future anyway. But you're basically just kicking the can down the road in a way that could easily still cost you north of $7M anyway. While also just guaranteeing that he's going to get his $8M x 8 or whatever when he becomes a UFA in a year or two.

I think you really just have to figure out what you want to do with this player...right now. And pull the trigger.


A buyer is giving you futures. If you are a PO team, can you do that to your roster and take a player away? Really, a decision probably needs to be made in the summer. Teams heading into PO don't plan on dealing UFAs to be come TDL.

This is definitely an issue with that strategy as well. But it's also probably an issue even if you decide to trade him right now. I think it's extremely unlikely that you can pull off a real "hockey trade" swap with Hronek right now. A lot of what you'd get in offers for him is probably...futures heavy. So you then need to have a plan for how you're going to parlay those futures into a replacement for right now.

As has been said... what is the contract...

I don't just qualify him though... I either sign with term or trade him

I think procedurally, you'd be daft not to at least qualify him. It's really just pointless paperwork at that point, if you haven't reached a long-term contract agreement by then. There's zero chance Hronek is accepting that $5.25M Qualifying Offer. He'd almost automatically be opting for salary arbitration at that point. Which opens a whole different can of worms. But i don't think there's any reason to not qualify him and give him the leverage of just walking directly to UFA this summer. Even in arbitration, he's guaranteed to be awarded something north of the "walk away" number. So worst case...you qualify him, go to arb...and then can still walk away just exactly the same as if you hadn't qualified him in the first place.


But his situation is one of these messy ones where in practical effect, he may as well be a UFA at this point. In terms of negotiation and leverage.


Which is where i think you have to decide what you're going to do with the player long-term, and just pull the trigger. Either qualify and trade him...or get a a long-term contract extension in place. One or the other.
 

valkynax

The LEEDAR
Sponsor
May 19, 2011
10,533
11,756
Burnaby
I'm open to signing him, but knowing the performance he gave in the playoffs and towards the end of the season, I can't imagine if he's still going to be negotiating from a position of significant strength.

He wanted more than what we initially offered, and now he's played himself to a lower tier.

Let Moleman and Mr. Clean deal with this, their no f***s given approach gives me a good deal of optimism.
 

Peen

Rejoicing in a Benning-free world
Oct 6, 2013
30,480
26,264
It’s at the point with Hronek where I wonder if 8x8 is him simply just saying he doesn’t want to play in VAN rather than actually thinking he can get that elsewhere. He was pretty cold when he got traded here and has avoided the media this entire year.

Dhali saying that no one he’s talked to thinks he’s worth that is… pretty significant.

VAN management clearly believes so
 

crazychimp

Registered User
Jun 24, 2014
3,169
1,345
Vancouver
If they can find better righty’s at a better price yes. But we need right side defensemen not defensemen playing the wrong side that is one of the weaknesses that was shown in the series against the Oilers it needs to be addressed to give this team a chance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nick Lang

Burke's Evil Spirit

Registered User
Oct 29, 2002
21,453
7,510
San Francisco
There are teams - Winnipeg, Buffalo, Utah, Ottawa all come to mind - I can definitely see being willing to pay Hronek that money. Basically any team that struggles to sign free agents.
 

iceburg

Don't ask why
Aug 31, 2003
7,665
4,045
Always difficult to answer these types of questions without more context.

1. Can you get a first for him?
2. Will he get North of $7M in his next contract?
3. What are the consequences of signing him - unable to sign 2 of Zadorov, Lindholm, or Joshua?

If the answer is yes to all three then it's a no brainer, trade him?

If the answer is no to all three then you keep him.

Of course, the abyss in between is where it will likely end up. And that's harder to assess.
 

LickTheEnvelope

Time to Retool... again...
Dec 16, 2008
38,693
5,968
Vancouver
This is a "depends on price" question. If he's at or under $6 mil per then he's probably a keep. If he's over then he should likely be a move.
 

credulous

Registered User
Nov 18, 2021
3,470
4,653
i have no idea what he fetches in trade or what he's actually "worth" signing for all i know is i don't want to team to feel like they have to sign him because of sunk cost (we traded so much for him) or because he plays a hard to replace position. worst case scenario is they sign him to a huge contract and he never really fits in a la myers
 
  • Like
Reactions: tradervik

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
26,629
10,025
Always difficult to answer these types of questions without more context.

1. Can you get a first for him?
2. Will he get North of $7M in his next contract?
3. What are the consequences of signing him - unable to sign 2 of Zadorov, Lindholm, or Joshua?

If the answer is yes to all three then it's a no brainer, trade him?

If the answer is no to all three then you keep him.

Of course, the abyss in between is where it will likely end up. And that's harder to assess.
Also part of the big picture. Hughes and Soucy are under contract from the current D core.
Zadorov, Myers, Cole are all UFA. Hronek the team has control for 1 more season.

Have to figure out how you fill the other D.

UFA market isn't great. Outside of Tanev, kind of bare bones. Theodore is likely on the trade block in LV. He's a LHD but can play the right side. But, like Hronek, he's also looking for a new deal. He would be 30 when his deal runs out. So, not too inclined to do max term on him either.
 

vancityluongo

curse of the strombino
Sponsor
Jul 8, 2006
18,769
6,568
Edmonton
It's easy to say "drop him and sign someone like Tanev", but we just saw Cole get worn down by age over the course of a full season.

And you can maybe trade him for assets and sign a Montour, but there's a 4 year difference in age there so you're not exactly getting full value for your dollar.

I think we keep him. Allan Walsh is insane, yes, but the drop off in play in the second half of the season happened team-wide and Hronek's clearly fighting and injury. That keeps the number down.

exactly.

on the trade front - obviously trade him if you can get back a valuable piece and there's a non-tanev rh option available in free agency that would sign here - so one of roy, demelo, or montour. doubly so if that piece coming back is a center (dylan strome?) which allows the team to move on from lindholm without overpaying and then use the cap space to trade for an elite winger (buchnevich, ehlers) for cheap.

but that's a lot of contingencies that probably won't play out. so the best bet is probably to take a gamble on him for less than maximum term. i'd do a 6x6 for hronek.
 

Breakers

Make Mirrored Visors Legal Again
Aug 5, 2014
21,676
20,166
Denver Colorado
Give Demelo Tanev money

4 years younger

These reports that Tanev is expensive at 35 is wild.

Even overdrive says he is going to be expensive with Johnston.

Ottawa likes him a lot and is willing to overpay
 

God

Free Citizen
Apr 2, 2007
10,442
7,595
Vancouver
exactly.

on the trade front - obviously trade him if you can get back a valuable piece and there's a non-tanev rh option available in free agency that would sign here - so one of roy, demelo, or montour. doubly so if that piece coming back is a center (dylan strome?) which allows the team to move on from lindholm without overpaying and then use the cap space to trade for an elite winger (buchnevich, ehlers) for cheap.

but that's a lot of contingencies that probably won't play out. so the best bet is probably to take a gamble on him for less than maximum term. i'd do a 6x6 for hronek.
It won't be at 6M AAV. The Hanifin contract at 7.35M is the comparable, and he's a better player, but he shoots left and maybe the no income tax played a part in that.

For a RHS, it'll be around 7-7.5M...I'm probably fine with that because they are going to get his entire prime years over the course of that contract. It's around 8% of the cap right now but that'll decrease in the coming years.
 

Rotang

Registered User
Sep 30, 2005
2,491
300
Dallas, TX
I'll echo the "depends on the price" sentiment here, but also, what sort of return would you expect to see? Are there any recent comparables?
 

Luck 6

\\_______
Oct 17, 2008
10,259
1,903
Vancouver
We bitched and moaned for years that Hughes didn't have a good D partner. Then, management went out and found him one, and now that he wants to be paid, you want to trade him....? No thanks, I'd rather keep him.

His price of 8mil is high, but I honestly think it will come down a bit. If we can get him at 7.5mil or so it really isn't a bad deal. And yes, he didn't have the best post season, but he'll still be 27 y/o at the start of next season, defenders often peak late.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Green Blank Stare

Vancouver_2010

Canucks and Oilers fan
Jun 21, 2006
6,287
1,282
why would you want to keep a player whom is largely ineffective during the post season , what is the rationale on that?
 

Michael Dal Swolle

Registered User
Dec 15, 2013
286
405
He didn't perform well but playing in his first playoffs, potentially with an injury, I think he can be better going forward. Big, physical RHS top 4 defencemen don't grow on trees and as much as he sucked this year I think it's just as much of a risk to let him go and have to replace him in free agency as it is to hope he builds on this experience since we don't exactly have an heir apparent waiting in the wings. Have to think management will keep him around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crazychimp

Nick Lang

Registered User
May 14, 2015
2,110
582
why would you want to keep a player whom is largely ineffective during the post season , what is the rationale on that?

Lots of guys were ineffective during the playoffs. We only had 3 or 4 very effective players and lots of passengers. Plus, he was playing hurt wasn't he? We still need RD, we currently have no one besides Juulsen signed. He's a #7, or #8. Hughes also probably wins the Norris this year with him as a partner. Huge cry from last year and a huge gamble to move on from.
 

Bertuzzzi44

Registered User
Jun 26, 2018
3,688
3,430
I’d rather have 2 capable defenceman for 3.5M each than Hronek for 7M. 6M max or we should move him.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad