HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Hamhuis for Beauchemin

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-24-2011, 12:54 PM
  #26
Confound
-Vindicated-
 
Confound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 17,611
vCash: 500
Vancouver hangs up the phone.

Confound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 12:59 PM
  #27
trevorbird
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Tennessee
Country: United States
Posts: 125
vCash: 500
Vancouver is the only place Hamhuis wants to play. There's really no question about that. I have my complaints about the guy, but watching him since like 2002 will give you complaints about anyone. He's a good player, he's never leaving Vancouver.

trevorbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 01:11 PM
  #28
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogiCanucks View Post
Hamhuis is FAR from untouchable... but this deal is WAYYY off. Beauch has been god awful this year. (and last year...)
I said "close to". But seriously--if I'm not mistaken, he has an NTC. He was/is Gillis' prized free agent signing from the summer, he's locked up long-term to good numbers at a hometown discount for the team. Gillis both honours NTCs and doesn't move players he just acquired. That, IMO, makes him pretty close to an untouchable player.

Mr. Canucklehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 01:14 PM
  #29
cyris
Global Moderator
On a Soma Holiday
 
cyris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Planet From Sun.
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,196
vCash: 797
Neither team does this.
The Nucks wouldn't want to give up the better and more valuable player.
And the Leafs have enough spent on defense. As good as Hamhuis is he isnt good enough to justify adding even more money to Toronto's back end.

cyris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 01:41 PM
  #30
Diamonddog01
Registered User
 
Diamonddog01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,147
vCash: 500
Cue jfried and asinine statements about how they're the same player.

Vancouver would never do a one for one swap, because Hamhuis is the better defenceman, it's that simple.

If Toronto added Kulemin or a significant piece along those lines, and if Hamhuis didn't sign at a discount to come here, with an NTC (and wasn't signed this past offseason) perhaps Van would grudgingly consider it.

Diamonddog01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 01:54 PM
  #31
Rinzler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mississauga
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamonddog01 View Post
Cue jfried and asinine statements about how they're the same player.

Vancouver would never do a one for one swap, because Hamhuis is the better defenceman, it's that simple.

If Toronto added Kulemin or a significant piece along those lines, and if Hamhuis didn't sign at a discount to come here, with an NTC (and wasn't signed this past offseason) perhaps Van would grudgingly consider it.
Are you trolling? I don't see anyone here who said Beauch is a better defenceman.

Rinzler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 01:58 PM
  #32
noBSleafsFAN
Registered User
 
noBSleafsFAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 639
vCash: 500
hamhuis>beauchemin

noBSleafsFAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:01 PM
  #33
Diamonddog01
Registered User
 
Diamonddog01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by apb03 View Post
Are you trolling? I don't see anyone here who said Beauch is a better defenceman.
Read the thread.

You have this beauty of a post on the first page.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanleyorbust View Post
HA.... Hamhuis is over-rated. He has no offensive upside what so-ever, and will always be a 20-30 pt defenseman at best. Only thing he beats Beauchemin on is the GVA, and and take aways. Every other defensive category he is behind Beauchimin in. He doesn't hit, he doesn't block shots. He is a good player... but his success in transition is more a product of the strong forward group Vancouver has than his own skills.
jfried has (thankfully) not seen this thread yet, but he has made numerous statements regarding Hamhuis and Beachemin.

Diamonddog01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:05 PM
  #34
RogerRoeper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21,694
vCash: 500
If Vancouver can't dump Ballard's bad contract, this would be an ok deal for them.

RogerRoeper* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:18 PM
  #35
Boondock
Registered User
 
Boondock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
If Vancouver can't dump Ballard's bad contract, this would be an ok deal for them.
no, no it would not work in any way shape or form. If the Nucks choose to move Ballard, it will have nothing to do with Hamhuis or his availability.

Boondock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:26 PM
  #36
Horvat2Virtanen
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Horvat2Virtanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,881
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
If Vancouver can't dump Ballard's bad contract, this would be an ok deal for them.
Firstly who said we're trying to "dump Ballard's contract" If the right offer presents itself for him than maybe we move him, but to say we're trying to dump his contract is ludicrous. Lastly there is no way Vancouver would ever trade Hamhuis for Beauchemin.

Horvat2Virtanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:28 PM
  #37
RogerRoeper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno Mars View Post
Firstly who said we're trying to "dump Ballard's contract" If the right offer presents itself for him than maybe we move him, but to say we're trying to dump his contract is ludicrous. Lastly there is no way Vancouver would ever trade Hamhuis for Beauchemin.
Vancouver is already looking to get rid of Ballard. It was a dumb move getting both him and Hamhuis. They didn't need him. He's a waste of 4.2 million per.

Media reports are saying he's on his way out so I wouldn't call it ridiculous.

Keith Ballard=Mike Komisarek.

RogerRoeper* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:36 PM
  #38
HeadLikeAnOrange*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
Media reports are saying he's on his way out so I wouldn't call it ridiculous.
Media Reports?!

Link??

HeadLikeAnOrange* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:44 PM
  #39
Drake1588
UNATCO
 
Drake1588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 27,846
vCash: 500
Hamhuis would need a powerful incentive to leave Vancouver right now, and he has an ironclad veto.

Drake1588 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:45 PM
  #40
RogerRoeper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadLikeAnOrange View Post
Media Reports?!

Link??
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/C...148/story.html

RogerRoeper* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:50 PM
  #41
R0bert0 Lu0ng0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
If Vancouver can't dump Ballard's bad contract, this would be an ok deal for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
Vancouver is already looking to get rid of Ballard. It was a dumb move getting both him and Hamhuis. They didn't need him. He's a waste of 4.2 million per.

Media reports are saying he's on his way out so I wouldn't call it ridiculous.

Keith Ballard=Mike Komisarek.
I'm astonished that anyone is taking you seriously.

R0bert0 Lu0ng0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:50 PM
  #42
HeadLikeAnOrange*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
I'll cut you some slack because you're not local but it is very well known out here that the Vancouver media have NO clue how the salary cap works.

In that article alone we have references to 'spending LTIR savings from other injuries' () and the Canucks being 'forced' by the league to bring Salo back when he gets healthy ()

The article doesnt mention that Ballard is on his way out, but even if it did it means little in the real world.

HeadLikeAnOrange* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:51 PM
  #43
Szechwan
Plug Life.
 
Szechwan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 2,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
Vancouver is already looking to get rid of Ballard. It was a dumb move getting both him and Hamhuis. They didn't need him. He's a waste of 4.2 million per.

Media reports are saying he's on his way out so I wouldn't call it ridiculous.

Keith Ballard=Mike Komisarek.
Whoooah what games have you been watching?

90% of Canuck fans want Ballard to see more ice, and he's gotten steadily better as the season has moved forward. The guy had pretty massive surgery in the offseason; stick to what you know.

edit: there ya go, 3 similar replies at the same time- a testament to the stupidity of your comment.

Szechwan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:53 PM
  #44
Ched Brosky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
Vancouver is already looking to get rid of Ballard. It was a dumb move getting both him and Hamhuis. They didn't need him. He's a waste of 4.2 million per.

Media reports are saying he's on his way out so I wouldn't call it ridiculous.

Keith Ballard=Mike Komisarek.
I highly doubt that Ballard is on his way out. Ehrhoff, Salo, Alberts and Bieksa are UFA's at the seasons end.

Without Ballard the Nucks are left with Edler and Hamhuis, and Rome.

With Salo being soo injury prone he could potentially retire after this season and if he doesn't he's probably going to have to sign a cheap contract with bonuses for games played.
You can't really expect more than 50 games out of him at most. Say he is re-signed, he would be the #5 at his age and to make sure he isn't injured as much by decreasing his ice time.

Now you have a bottom pairing and need 2 top 4 dmen. What are the chances you keep both the ones you have when the teams is doing soo good meaning players are going to get raises?

Now say we re-sign Ehrhoff and lose Bieksa. Now how likely are the Canucks going to sign a guy that is a top 4 dman in the UFA market and fit him in the cap and be as good or better than Ballard?

All the top guys available are going to get somehwere around 5.5M-6M. Now the guys on Ballards level will probably get around 5M on the market because of how high the cap is and how teams always overpay for top 6 fowards or top 4 dmen in the off season.

So keeping Ballard isn't hurting us right now especially with all the injuries as if he was traded we would have to play Nolan Baumgartner today in our top 4. If not him it would be Lee Sweat or Chris Tanev. I say Baumer because its unlikely anyone else gets the call. Parent is the other choice but the Gillis knows he will be claimed when put on re-entry waivers so he's not losing an asset and wasting cap space.
Plus keeping him sets most of the core defense for the team for next season

Ched Brosky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:53 PM
  #45
Kickassguy
Registered User
 
Kickassguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,494
vCash: 50
Send a message via ICQ to Kickassguy Send a message via MSN to Kickassguy
Wow, you guys are actually trying to engage with RR? It's pretty much futile. Why bother?

Kickassguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:55 PM
  #46
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,506
vCash: 500
puff....pufff......pass!

Hamhuis was getting offers for over $5 million on the open market, he came to Van at a discount rate....why on God's green earth would you trade someone who desperately wants to play for your team for an older worse player.

You want a Vancouver defensman, it's going to be Bieksa, Ehrhoff or Ballard before Hamhuis' name ever gets brought up.

Yikes at the things being proposed on HFboards these days.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:55 PM
  #47
Diamonddog01
Registered User
 
Diamonddog01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
Vancouver is already looking to get rid of Ballard. It was a dumb move getting both him and Hamhuis. They didn't need him. He's a waste of 4.2 million per.

Media reports are saying he's on his way out so I wouldn't call it ridiculous.

Keith Ballard=Mike Komisarek.
Ugh, just stop. You realize that next year Vancouver only has Ballard, Hamhuis and Edler as their top 4 defenceman under contract at the end of this season?

And that we desperately needed more durable defenceman than Bieksa and Salo given the fact both had missed significant portions of the past few years due to injury (although in Bieksa's case it was a fluke/freak injury, but the fact remains)?

And that both Hamhuis and Ballard have proven themselves to be extremely durable players throughout their career?

Ballard=Komisarek? Are you kidding me??

Just stop posting in Canuck threads.

Diamonddog01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:55 PM
  #48
stanleyorbust
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamonddog01 View Post
Read the thread.

You have this beauty of a post on the first page.



jfried has (thankfully) not seen this thread yet, but he has made numerous statements regarding Hamhuis and Beachemin.
Actually if you read above.. you would see that although I believe Hamhuis to be a quality player, the leafs do not have room on the blue line for him and would be looking to acquire a forward for Beauchemin.

I merely pointed out the facts that Hamhuis has 56 hits to Beauch's 75, 44 Blks to 109 from Beauch's... while having superior numbers with much lower giveaways. I speculated that had a lot to do with the lack of depth Toronto has upfront, and how strong Vancouver is.

Did I say Beauch was a better defenseman? I pointed out some tracked defensive stats, and if you took that as Beauch is better.. than I wont argue with you. However, I never said that.

stanleyorbust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:57 PM
  #49
Reign Nateo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,430
vCash: 500
Hammer for Beauchemin?



Canucks have no contract issues and are happy with their defence. Turrible idea.

Reign Nateo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 03:09 PM
  #50
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanleyorbust View Post
HA.... Hamhuis is over-rated. He has no offensive upside what so-ever, and will always be a 20-30 pt defenseman at best. Only thing he beats Beauchemin on is the GVA, and and take aways. Every other defensive category he is behind Beauchimin in. He doesn't hit, he doesn't block shots. He is a good player... but his success in transition is more a product of the strong forward group Vancouver has than his own skills.
Doesnt hit????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q599OC7UM-4


Grab a clue here folks.

He also plays 2nd unit PP for the 3rd highest scoring team in the league. He had a 38 point year, the last time he was counted on on the PP in Nashville.

I wish I could put out a video or show that Hamhuis was the best Defensman for Canada at the World Championships in 2008 in Quebec and Halifax.

He was the best and most played defensman on the team. defensman on that team were Duncan Keith (the only guy that rivalled Hamhuis' TOI), Brent Burns, Mike Green, Jay-Bo, Jovo, Staios and Mark Giordano.

Albeit he only had 2 points, so did Keith, they spent their time shutting down the oppositions top lines.....thats why so many teams wanted him last summer.


Last edited by arsmaster: 01-24-2011 at 03:12 PM. Reason: couldnt get the YT video to show up in the post....I dont know why....Im probably not tech saavy enough
arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:48 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.