Heard an interesting point on 1040 yesterday--the Canucks line-up yesterday had the absolute minimum number of 200+ game NHLers teams are required to play in the preseason. This team is so young and inexperienced, that the league's rules preventing clubs from icing a squad of non-NHL players to rest the real team are being violated in the "real" season.
Well, it's real in that the games count in the standings, but there's nothing at stake beyond hoping they can lose enough and a few other teams win enough to get the Canucks in the lottery.
This brings us to Hamhuis and his future. With Edler and Sbisa out of the lineup last night, Hamhuis and Tanev were the only defencemen who'd qualify under the 200 game rule. Pedan and Tryamkin together had three games (all Pedan's) between them prior to the game. There are a lot of young D on this team and while many of us are choked about the inability to trade Hamhuis (I agree with those who think the blame likely rests on the Aquilini factor and hatred of Dallas ownership) it may be that he's back in the fall to mentor this very young back end.
He wants to stay in Vancouver. He's a B.C. guy and his family are established here. He took less to play in Van last contract, so will he give an even deeper discount if required?
He'll want the no-trade clause again, and while I hate them, it may be a good trade-off to keep his price point low. Right now, the league is waffling about whether the no-trades will be respected in the anticipated expansion draft if Vegas is coming into the league in October 2017. If the clauses do apply and prevent players from having to go to a sure to suck Vegas team, guys like Hamhuis will press for no-trades even harder.
Maybe they should honour the no-trades only for guys who have kids...
With the ridiculous number of entry-level contracts this team will still have for the next two years, it's not going to be difficult to pay a player like Hamhuis his money if he is useful as a mentor for the young guys. If he'd ever sign a two-year deal, it would be perfectly timed to get him off the books just as the Sedins are likely coming off as well and the young players are starting to get bigger salaries.
But someone will offer him more term, and that's what Vancouver shouldn't do. It's the reason that Lucic is a landmine I'll be glad to see re-sign in L.A. as well--he'd be good for three years, but an anchor in the longer contract he'll demand.
I like Hamhuis. If guys like Pedan and Tryamkin are going to stick, and Sbisa plays with fewer brain freezes, they have the size they need to allow Hutton and Tanev to provide the skill, while Edler sort of does a bit of both. Hamhuis isn't really necessary if the young guys develop and there aren't a rash of injuries. Management has rewarded Biega with a contract, and he's looked fine--but the small fast d-man role may eventually be filled by Subban.
Lidster can teach the position, but watching what Hamhuis does on the ice, if he doesn't get too slow as his body shows evidence of the miles, is valuable to all the defense prospects. Realistically, he's not a top two guy any more, but the Canucks top pairing will probably be some combo of Tanev, Hutton and Edler next year anyway.
But if he's looking for a payday, well, Edmonton needs mentors more than anybody in the league.
No comments:
Post a Comment