HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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.

Vancouver and Nashville (At the Draft)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2010, 01:14 AM
  #26
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Well lets say this then since I think that the initial trade offer was pretty obviously one sided in the Preds favor. What would fans think about that deal at the trade deadline then? I think that would be an interesting move, something like Hamhuis and a 3rd for Schneider and a 2nd or somethign like that.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 01:17 AM
  #27
Predsrule
Registered User
 
Predsrule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundin is my hero View Post
If there is one thing that Nashville does not need it is goaltending prospects. no deal
This..
hes a key part of our top 4.. an we have our own playoff push to wory about.. that and we have a few good young goalies in our system so this doesnt help much long term..despite what most frustrated fans think Hamhuis needs to be kept if we have anythought of anything with playoffs wether it be making it or doing anything in it.. if we trade him then we have 2 number 1 d and 4-7 number 5-6 D one of our big needs is a top 4 D so why trade one away for somthing that doesnt make our team better now? playoofs gt us more money so u can bet the owners/gm staff will make every move they can to get us there... moving Hamhuis for nothing this year does not do that.. in fact it hurts that

Predsrule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 01:44 AM
  #28
Paranoid Android
ERMAHGERD
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 11,856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Predsrule View Post
This..
hes a key part of our top 4.. an we have our own playoff push to wory about.. that and we have a few good young goalies in our system so this doesnt help much long term..despite what most frustrated fans think Hamhuis needs to be kept if we have anythought of anything with playoffs wether it be making it or doing anything in it.. if we trade him then we have 2 number 1 d and 4-7 number 5-6 D one of our big needs is a top 4 D so why trade one away for somthing that doesnt make our team better now? playoofs gt us more money so u can bet the owners/gm staff will make every move they can to get us there... moving Hamhuis for nothing this year does not do that.. in fact it hurts that
The deal proposed is off-season and thus has no impact on our playoff push.

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 02:16 AM
  #29
CloutierForVezina
Registered User
 
CloutierForVezina's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
Well lets say this then since I think that the initial trade offer was pretty obviously one sided in the Preds favor. What would fans think about that deal at the trade deadline then? I think that would be an interesting move, something like Hamhuis and a 3rd for Schneider and a 2nd or somethign like that.
I would do this trade at the deadline in a second. It would give the canucks a defense corps of:

Mitchell-Bieksa
Ehrhoff-Salo
Edler-Hamhuis
SOB, Lukowich

I don't want to sound like a huge homer... but adding Hamhuis takes our decent defence and pushes it to the top of the league. Having 2 shut down men like Mitchell and Hamhuis is just ridiculous. Add in the fact we have 2-way guys like Ehrhoff, Edler and Salo... We'd be damn hard to play against, damn hard to score against.

Of course, this is probably only possible at the deadline. I doubt we can re-sign all of Raymond, Kesler, Mitchell, etc. AND sign a high caliber UFA like Hamhuis.

Oh, and the 2nd would have to be 2011.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Predanerd View Post
The deal proposed is off-season and thus has no impact on our playoff push.
Yep. As much as I'd absolutely love Hamhuis for the Canucks' push... I don't see it happening. I'd be willing to pay a pretty penny to acquire Hamhuis at the deadline though...

CloutierForVezina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 04:07 AM
  #30
worstfaceoffmanever
These Snacks Are Odd
 
worstfaceoffmanever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Winston-Salem, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumperkisser View Post
um.. i cant speak for nashville fans because i am NOT one.. but from an outsiders POV.. that is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY OFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF... IMO nashville gets screwed.. like crazy screwed...
If the Canucks sign Hamhuis for $3.5M/year, they're the only ones getting screwed. Hamhuis is probably having the worst season of his career.

I'd take it. We have to go out and sign a defender to replace Hammer, but we can get someone better and more consistent for a similar price tag to what he'll be asking. Plus, with both our goalies nearing free agency and neither really being able to take firm control of the starting job, Schneider gives us more young options and some leverage. If we get lucky, he might even be able to start for us.

worstfaceoffmanever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 10:28 AM
  #31
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worstfaceoffmanever View Post
If the Canucks sign Hamhuis for $3.5M/year, they're the only ones getting screwed. Hamhuis is probably having the worst season of his career.

I'd take it. We have to go out and sign a defender to replace Hammer, but we can get someone better and more consistent for a similar price tag to what he'll be asking. Plus, with both our goalies nearing free agency and neither really being able to take firm control of the starting job, Schneider gives us more young options and some leverage. If we get lucky, he might even be able to start for us.
It's a bad deal for Vancouver, simply due to the kind of season Hamhuis is having. I'd be leery of offering him the long-term deal he'd get.

Nashville doesn't really need goaltending prospects, but I'd take it simply to have the assets. Then, they could either flip Schneider or Pickard for help in other areas.

__________________
www.thepredatorial.com

barrytrotzsneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 11:59 AM
  #32
BigFatCat999
I love GoOoOlD
 
BigFatCat999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Campbell, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,533
vCash: 500
I could see it, Pickard is a year away I do not see Nashville signing both Ellis and Rinne. Rinne yes, but not Ellis. Does Nashville have a gut of goal prospects? Yes, but they are a good year away. Hamhuis is having a bad year but when he's playing his game he is a very good defensive defenseman. I could definately see this deal going down if Nashville can also make draft day deals for Ellis and Dekanich for picks.

BigFatCat999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 12:05 PM
  #33
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFatCat999 View Post
I could see it, Pickard is a year away I do not see Nashville signing both Ellis and Rinne. Rinne yes, but not Ellis. Does Nashville have a gut of goal prospects? Yes, but they are a good year away. Hamhuis is having a bad year but when he's playing his game he is a very good defensive defenseman. I could definately see this deal going down if Nashville can also make draft day deals for Ellis and Dekanich for picks.
Ellis is UFA, and Dekanich is a dime-a-dozen AHL goalie. We'd likely keep him to start in Milwaukee. Schneider backs up Rinne, Pickard is traded for offensive help.

barrytrotzsneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2010, 11:52 AM
  #34
BPD
Registered User
 
BPD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 2,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by roddy View Post
To Vancouver:
Dan Hamhuis ($2m, UFA 2010)
2010 3rd Round Pick

To Nashville:
Cory Schneider ($0.984m, RFA 2011)

Okay, so I may be getting ahead of myself here. For all I know, Nashville may fully intend to resign both Hamhuis and both of their goalies - or maybe they see Ellis or Rinne as a 70-75 gamer next year and don't care much about their backup.

BUT.. if Hamhuis doesn't sign an extension and Nashville wants to let one of their goaltenders walk I see this trade as workable. They have tons of defensive depth, and while Chet Pickard may be playing pro hockey he's probably not going to be ready for full time NHL duty for at least a couple of years. That means that the Preds will need to either resign both goalies (who are due for raises) or pick up an inexpensive goaltender.

Schneider on the other hand is arguably ready this year, and will be ready for time next season. Barring injury he won't get a substantial opportunity in Vancouver and might be eligible for UFA at the end of next season (he needs to play a certain number of games to prevent this).

Vancouver has some cap space opening up and would like to add a younger defenseman, Hamhuis certainly fits the bill. They also need to recoup a draft pick as they don't have their 2nd in this draft.

Thoughts? Am I way off on the direction Nashville is likely to take? Is the value off?
Nashville isn't going to give up Hamhuis for a 5th goalie they turn into an all-star and let walk.

BPD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2010, 01:19 PM
  #35
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post
considering he's unlikely to sign with Nashville anyways, given the depth they have coming up on defense, why not just wait until July 1st to make him an offer?

considering the number of decent dmen available in FA, it makes no sense to give up a solid prospect like Schneider to get his rights (and a 3rd round pick)... very few players have their rights traded prior to FA and they are nearly always top end players or most coveted UFAs... Hamhuis hits the UFA market the same time that Kubina, Gonchar, Martin, Mitchell, Volchenkov, Zidlicky, Morris, Lydman, Johansson, etc. I don't see him having any value as a UFA rights prior to July 1st.
No offense but I don't understand why people think this way.

When you go out and trade away an asset for a player, you're basically declaring your intent to sign them. You're going the distance because THAT is the player you want. Alot of players recognize this, and it does make a difference. If I were a player and a good team went out of their way to make a play for me before July 1st I'd be flattered, and if the situation made sense I'd likely sign. Am I wrong here?

We seem to have trouble attracting UFA's so for us, this may make sense. Look at J-Bo last year, do you think he would have ended up in Calgary if he hit UFA status? Maybe, but maybe not.. By trading for his rights Calgary guaranteed the fact that he would be there.

Luck 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2010, 02:38 PM
  #36
Paranoid Android
ERMAHGERD
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 11,856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
No offense but I don't understand why people think this way.

When you go out and trade away an asset for a player, you're basically declaring your intent to sign them. You're going the distance because THAT is the player you want. Alot of players recognize this, and it does make a difference. If I were a player and a good team went out of their way to make a play for me before July 1st I'd be flattered, and if the situation made sense I'd likely sign. Am I wrong here?

We seem to have trouble attracting UFA's so for us, this may make sense. Look at J-Bo last year, do you think he would have ended up in Calgary if he hit UFA status? Maybe, but maybe not.. By trading for his rights Calgary guaranteed the fact that he would be there.
I agree. 90% of the time, that player ends up signing an extension. If they make it to UFA, then they might be tempted by convincing GM's.

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2010, 02:45 PM
  #37
BLAME CANADA*
The Canucks did it
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 5,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post
considering he's unlikely to sign with Nashville anyways, given the depth they have coming up on defense, why not just wait until July 1st to make him an offer?

considering the number of decent dmen available in FA, it makes no sense to give up a solid prospect like Schneider to get his rights (and a 3rd round pick)... very few players have their rights traded prior to FA and they are nearly always top end players or most coveted UFAs... Hamhuis hits the UFA market the same time that Kubina, Gonchar, Martin, Mitchell, Volchenkov, Zidlicky, Morris, Lydman, Johansson, etc. I don't see him having any value as a UFA rights prior to July 1st.
If he was coming back with a deal in place, that he'll sign here, I'd give up Cory for him!.

BLAME CANADA* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2010, 02:54 PM
  #38
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
No offense but I don't understand why people think this way.

When you go out and trade away an asset for a player, you're basically declaring your intent to sign them. You're going the distance because THAT is the player you want. Alot of players recognize this, and it does make a difference. If I were a player and a good team went out of their way to make a play for me before July 1st I'd be flattered, and if the situation made sense I'd likely sign. Am I wrong here?

We seem to have trouble attracting UFA's so for us, this may make sense. Look at J-Bo last year, do you think he would have ended up in Calgary if he hit UFA status? Maybe, but maybe not.. By trading for his rights Calgary guaranteed the fact that he would be there.
uhh?

when have the Canucks had trouble attracting UFAs?

Who have the Canucks gone after in the past few years that didn't want to play here? Vancouver seems like a top destination right now - a team on the rise, core players locked up and all wanting to sign longterm deals, a GM that seems to have great relationships with a lot of players out there.

The only thing holding them back from attracting more FAs is cap issues and contract commitments to players already here.

And again, I'm confused why you make a move like this to go after a player like Hamhuis? He is likely somewhere in the #5-10 range of UFA dmen available on the market, and most Pred fans will confirm how horrible a season he's had. Why would you deal an asset to go after a FA that is struggling this year, in a market that will have several other both better and comparable dmen available?

I agree with you that if you're going after a big name UFA - like JBo, and you know that there will be multiple suitors while few, if any, comparable options, it makes some sense to acquire their rights first... you likely still don't get them at a discount (since we aren't seeing any in the previous UFA rights dealt), but you have a leg up to get that player signed. When you consider every player who's rights have been dealt prior to FA, Hamhuis just doesn't belong on that list. That list is always the most coveted FAs available, and Hamhuis is playing no where near that level.

Why would you do that for a guy like Hamhuis? Getting him on FA $$ will likely mean he's a replacement for Mitchell... and at this point, Mitchell is a *significantly* more valuable player than Hamhuis is. Hamhuis could be a nice depth player for this team, but players like this aren't going to be dealt as UFA rights, and if the Canucks have the cap room after re-sign Mitchell, Kesler and Raymond, and decide that O'Brien or Bieksa aren't fits, then you consider Hamhuis... but that's an offseason consideration - not a player you acquire just before FA.

Maybe I'm underrating Hamhuis big time here... but hearing the feedback on his season and from the handful of games I've seen of his this year, I think he's being severely overrated by some Canuck fans, maybe because he's a BC player? he's a risk player that you can take a chance on to improve, but he's no where near replacing a player like Mitchell, who's still arguably the Canucks most valuable defender.

NFITO 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 02:15 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.