Proposal: Hansen for Sheary, Fehr, and a 2nd

[Riptide]

Terrible for Pittsburgh, Sheary is better then Hansen.

While I don't think this is a good deal for Pittsburgh, Sheary is not better than Hansen. He's more skilled and more creative, but Hansen is a far more complete player. And while Sheary might be a tweener/middle 6 forward, Hansen is without a doubt a middle 6 guy.

This is the most false thing ive ever read.

I wouldn't go that far... but this is probably one of the few things we do agree on. Because while I don't think the production would be all that different next season (assuming both were put in the same sort of roll), Hansen is the more complete player.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Your valuation of Pouliot is hilariously off. At absolute worst, Pouliot's value is similar to Reinhart's value from 2015. I wouldn't do Pouliot for Hansen straight up, it would be a classic case of buying high on a guy that will almost definitely regress and giving up a guy with big potential for a marginal upgrade.

Whilst I too wouldn't do Pouliot for Hansen, I disagree with your evaluation of Pouliot.

Is Pouliot worth more than Reinhart? Any day of the week. However it is quite known that Chia payed an absurd amount for him. I'd say a 15th OA would be the best we can get for him.

 

[Greg Schuler]

Easy pass from a Van Pov...Hansen is so versatile and well rounded with an excellent contract that I see this as a quantity for quality deal. Don't forget he scored 22 with next to 0 PP time. This package is extremely underwhelming.

You really think Hansen can sustain an 18.8% shooting percentage? When his career average is around 11%?

I would not be surprised if last season was Hansen's career year. It would be selling high by Vancouver. There is as much likelihood that Hansen regresses to his career norms - still a good player - than excels into whatever Top 6 player you fantasize about.

For all his physical attributes and his "hustle", Hansen is a below average possession player. His career scoring year was the result of a pretty high shooting percentage that may not be sustainable. He is a good third line player, of sorts, but he is a good example of the knock on effect of zone starts adding offensive value.

As far as the package, Sheary is young and unproven - he could turn out any number of ways. Sheary is not so young (24) and he may not turn into anything more than a usable NHL player. Fehr has been a better possession player than Hansen in the past, and they are the same age. The contract difference and recent performance negate Fehr's value, but if healthy, you could reasonably expect similar performance, despite differences in their attributes and "hustle".

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I didn't say he wouldn't be good on the Pens. But I'm not seeing him as being this huge offensive upgrade to the top six. The fact he produces similar to Hagelin proves as much, since Hagelin's more of a 2nd/3rd line tweener and not exactly a big scorer, either.

I don't understand how anyone could use Hags as a comparison negatively.

Given how versatile and effective Hagelin's been here despite not being a big scorer, would you not trade Sheary, Fehr, and a 2nd for another Hags at 2.5 mil per through '17-'18?

 

[KrisLetAngry]

He shot at 18 some odd % too much for him

 

[NuxFan09]

I'd rather quality than quantity for Hansen. The guy is perfect for today's NHL. He's fast, an elite checker and PK'er and he can slot in anywhere in the lineup (played great as a mentor and veteran linemate with Horvat on the 3Rd/4th line in 2014-15 and complimented the Sedins nicely last season).

The cost of Hansen is at least a 1st round pick, at least right now.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I'd rather quality than quantity for Hansen. The guy is perfect for today's NHL. He's fast, an elite checker and PK'er and he can slot in anywhere in the lineup (played great as a mentor and veteran linemate with Horvat on the 3Rd/4th line in 2014-15 and complimented the Sedins nicely last season).

The cost of Hansen is at least a 1st round pick, at least right now.

I understand that, but given Benning's moves toward making the playoffs (Eriksson, Gudbranson), I thought this provided a nice balance of replacing some of what Hansen brought to the current roster (speed, PK, versatility) while adding some decent futures.

But if it's 1st or bust, then Hansen's not really in the cards for us.

 

[NeedleInTheHay]

Conor Sheary just scored more points than Hansen ever did in a playoff season, scored a stanley cup ot goal, makes 5 times less, and they're going to trade him, a solid pker who can put up 15-20 goals (also had a huge GWG in round 2), plus a second round pick from a team who rarely has a first?

Just terrible for Pittsburgh.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Conor Sheary just scored more points than Hansen ever did in a playoff season, scored a stanley cup ot goal, makes 5 times less, and they're going to trade him, a solid pker who can put up 15-20 goals (also had a huge GWG in round 2), plus a second round pick from a team who rarely has a first?

Just terrible for Pittsburgh.

Context can be illuminating. I wonder if there's any difference between playing with Crosby and Hornqvist in a Finals run, and playing with Raffi Torres and Max Lapierre:

http://dobberhockey.com/frozenpool_...11:P:99&Submit=Show+Line+Combinations&sent=go

Other than that, Hansen hasn't played beyond the 1st round in half a decade, so expecting him to put up 10+ points in 7 or fewer games seems pretty stupid. But Hansen did score 4 points in 6 games in his last playoff run.

 

[Nuckles]

Conor Sheary just scored more points than Hansen ever did in a playoff season

That's a great argument if you completely ignore that he spent over 95% of his even strength ice time with Crosby or Malkin (plus guys like Hornqvist/Kessel/Bonino) while Hansen in 2011 had 1 less point playing with guys like Lapierre, Higgins, and Torres.

Edit: beaten to it



Anywho, pass for Vancouver. We have enough bottom 6 forwards so there's no reason to trade quality for quantity. We have no reason to move him for anything less than a 1st (or an equal value prospect).

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

Would rather keep Sheary. He has a lot of skill and good hockey iq.

 

[TNT87]

Too much to give up for the Pens.

 

[ManofSteel55]

Far too much for Hansen. Fehr and the 2nd should be enough, no need to include Sheary.

 

[NeedleInTheHay]

Context can be illuminating. I wonder if there's any difference between playing with Crosby and Hornqvist in a Finals run, and playing with Raffi Torres and Max Lapierre:

http://dobberhockey.com/frozenpool_...11:P:99&Submit=Show+Line+Combinations&sent=go

Other than that, Hansen hasn't played beyond the 1st round in half a decade, so expecting him to put up 10+ points in 7 or fewer games seems pretty stupid. But Hansen did score 4 points in 6 games in his last playoff run.

Here's some context.

Hansen scored 9 points in 25 games for a playoff high, Sheary scored 10 points in 23 games.

Sheary did this while injured, and while being an undrafted rookie, maybe just maybe he could even improve.

Why would you wanna give him up when you haven't even seen what he can really do yet?

Eric Fehr is almost as good as Hansen, not every single player needs to be a burner. This team burns draft picks all the time, is Hansen really worth giving up another high pick to marginally upgrade? This isn't even counting giving up on Sheary as well.

I stick by my statement that this would be a terrible move for the Pens.

 

[RandV]

Seeing how he's averaged between 10-16 goals in the 4 previous seasons, I have a hard time calling him a steady 16-20 goal guy.

Could he come close to 22 goals next season? Yeah perhaps if he plays the entire season with the Sedins. But that doesn't change the fact that that shooting percentage isn't sustainable - especially from someone who's not getting prime PP chances and isn't one of the best goal scorers in the league.

Eh just ignore that part, was parroting the guy I quoted. I thought it seemed a little high but didn't double check. The four years prior to last season though he's scored 16, 17*, 11, and 16 goals (*adjusted for lockout shortened season). And that 11 goal year was the season everyone on the Canucks stopped scoring. The slant is far more towards the 16 goal total than it is the 10.

Regardless though my point still stands. Sometimes people rely too much on stats to explain things, and here we're focusing on an unsustainable shooting percentage. But the bigger difference in goal totals from last season to his prior career average likely has far more to do with playing most of the season with the Sedins.

Those other goal totals came while playing 3rd line RW, last seasons 22 in 67 was playing on the top line. If he plays the season with the Sedins again, or as the proposal suggest gets traded to Pittsburgh and plays with Malkin, another 20-25+ goals is likely.

Look at a guy like Joel Ward. 30-35 point player in his 20's, 40-50 point player in his 30's. The key difference is where he's been played in the lineup: he started as a bottom six player, but when he hit 30 his grit and experience made him valuable cheaper option to play in the top six.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Here's some context.

Hansen scored 9 points in 25 games for a playoff high, Sheary scored 10 points in 23 games.

Sheary did this while injured, and while being an undrafted rookie, maybe just maybe he could even improve.

That is the only thing that qualifies as context. Sheary's draft status and potential don't affect what he's actually done.

And not only does an injury not make up for the difference between linemates, but Hansen's production from half a decade ago isn't really the best judge of his abilities now. He scored 4 points in 6 games in his latest playoff run, and is coming off a career regular season.

Why would you wanna give him up when you haven't even seen what he can really do yet?

Because Hansen's clearly better now and represents a much-needed upgrade on Geno's wing, and we have no shortage of young options for Sheary's spot beside Sid who are at least as good. He's not even the player I'd most like to see on Sid's LW to start the year (Wilson).

Eric Fehr is almost as good as Hansen, not every single player needs to be a burner. This team burns draft picks all the time, is Hansen really worth giving up another high pick to marginally upgrade? This isn't even counting giving up on Sheary as well.

Do you think Fehr is almost as good as Hagelin?

 

[Hi-wayman]

I understand that, but given Benning's moves toward making the playoffs (Eriksson, Gudbranson), I thought this provided a nice balance of replacing some of what Hansen brought to the current roster (speed, PK, versatility) while adding some decent futures.

But if it's 1st or bust, then Hansen's not really in the cards for us.

I've got no problem with the 2nd, but I have no interest in Sheary or Fehr.

Size, speed and strength is more critical in the west than the east. I'm not a fan of Fehr & the Canucks don't have room to protect him in the Expansion Draft. Sheary likely would not survive the season, especially in the Pacific Division.

The Canucks are looking to make the playoffs this season, not the cup finals. As such, they are looking for younger, big, fast players for the most part. Older players are filling in key spots so the team can win and is taught that accepting losses gracefully is not acceptable. Next to the Sedins and Burrows, Hansen's biggest contribution to the team is mentoring the younger players by showing on the ice what is expected by them.

A more suitable trade for Hansen would be Sprong, Gaunce and the Pen's 2017 or 2018 second round pick (Vancouver's choice)

 

[Bumpus]

Seems like a rash of Pens fans wanting to trade pieces away this offseason ...

When did this become a bad thing?​

LGP!

 

[Cogburn]

Hansen is a contributor, and frankly one of our best overall contributors. The "brain"-trust has decided it's playoffs or bust again, and moving Hansen for a lesser player, an inconsistent prospect and a pick is the opposite of what I'd expect this team to do. Like 180 degrees opposite.

Don't get me wrong, I know, you know, we know, everyone knows that the Canucks should focus on the future, but that isn't what our management/ownership group is focusing on.

I don't see anything on the Penguins I'd want for Hansen that wouldn't be an overpayment. That's not a slight, it's just that every player that would make sense we'd want to add to our current group, not make a near lateral trade for with Hansen.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I've got no problem with the 2nd, but I have no interest in Sheary or Fehr.

Size, speed and strength is more critical in the west than the east. I'm not a fan of Fehr & the Canucks don't have room to protect him in the Expansion Draft. Sheary likely would not survive the season, especially in the Pacific Division.

The Canucks are looking to make the playoffs this season, not the cup finals. As such, they are looking for younger, big, fast players for the most part. Older players are filling in key spots so the team can win and is taught that accepting losses gracefully is not acceptable. Next to the Sedins and Burrows, Hansen's biggest contribution to the team is mentoring the younger players by showing on the ice what is expected by them.

A more suitable trade for Hansen would be Sprong, Gaunce and the Pen's 2017 or 2018 second round pick (Vancouver's choice)

I understand the narrative, but an injured Sheary just scored 3 points in 6 games against the best team in the Pacific in the highest stakes imaginable.

As for not accepting losing gracefully, as much as I like Hansen, there's not much argument for him being a better winning influence than a couple guys who just came off a Cup win.

Sprong will not be dealt for Hansen, and I'm not sure how we're acquiring Gaunce to trade to you.

Hansen is a contributor, and frankly one of our best overall contributors. The "brain"-trust has decided it's playoffs or bust again, and moving Hansen for a lesser player, an inconsistent prospect and a pick is the opposite of what I'd expect this team to do. Like 180 degrees opposite.

Don't get me wrong, I know, you know, we know, everyone knows that the Canucks should focus on the future, but that isn't what our management/ownership group is focusing on.

I don't see anything on the Penguins I'd want for Hansen that wouldn't be an overpayment. That's not a slight, it's just that every player that would make sense we'd want to add to our current group, not make a near lateral trade for with Hansen.

That's fair.

 

[Cogburn]

That's fair.

I'm not going to rag on Penguins fans or their team, but it's just...it's the wrong kind of move for Vancouver's stated goals.

Think Bonino, Clendenning and a second for Sutter. Hansen for Fehr, Sheary and a 2nd is the exact opposite of that kind of trade for us. Bonino's performance and Sutter's injury made it look worse then your OP trade, but in this kind of trade, I have a feeling it would be Benning looking to upgrade...and likely overpaying.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Sprong will not be dealt for Hansen, and I'm not sure how we're acquiring Gaunce to trade to you.

We do own Cameron Gaunce.

 

[Major Happy*]

I've got no problem with the 2nd, but I have no interest in Sheary or Fehr.

Size, speed and strength is more critical in the west than the east. I'm not a fan of Fehr & the Canucks don't have room to protect him in the Expansion Draft. Sheary likely would not survive the season, especially in the Pacific Division.

The Canucks are looking to make the playoffs this season, not the cup finals. As such, they are looking for younger, big, fast players for the most part. Older players are filling in key spots so the team can win and is taught that accepting losses gracefully is not acceptable. Next to the Sedins and Burrows, Hansen's biggest contribution to the team is mentoring the younger players by showing on the ice what is expected by them.

A more suitable trade for Hansen would be Sprong, Gaunce and the Pen's 2017 or 2018 second round pick (Vancouver's choice)

hahahaha, you wish.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

We do own Cameron Gaunce.

Oh Jesus, we do.

Well, needless to say he wouldn't be a stumbling block in any trade scenario.

 

[Hi-wayman]

hahahaha, you wish.

Then it's very simple. The Canucks & their fans are just not interested in trading Hansen unless the team gets a return that the team feels improves the team's rebuilding and overall team. No matter how much you feel Fehr and Sheary are great hockey players, they just don't fit the type of player the Canucks are looking for. The best trade in this trade scenario is no trade at all.

hahahaha response is a bit childish isn't it?