TRADE or KEEP Hronek?

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/

Would you like to trade or keep Hronek?

  • Trade

  • Keep


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
19,324
6,279
Presumably you were also against giving 3 goal , minus 24 Hughs a long term 7.8 md deal ?

No. What made you presume that? At the time none of expected Hughes to score a lot of goals so I am not sure why his goal totals are even relevant to whether to sign Hughes long term. More importantly, Hughes signed after Makar and Heiskanen and didn’t get more than them. Hughes also hadn’t hit his prime/peak.

Hanifin just signed for $7.35M AAV. Do you think Hronek deserves $8M?
 

biturbo19

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
26,992
12,152
Well Rutherford traded McCann for Hallander and a 7th. And before you say expansion draft, look at who they protected over McCann. We at least gave up McCann thinking we gave up a potential top 6 player. The way McCann has been treated prior to arriving in Seattle is so odd.

I think Rutherford/Allvin’s D scouting has been much better and I think they know they this team needs Top 4 Dmen. They certainly haven’t committed money and term to guys like Bear.

And thank goodness they didn't. Bear looked borderline useless coming back from injury with the Caps. That's not a contract i'd want to have on the books.

But again...i think it highlights a few things.

1)Hughes is an absolute stud and he's capable of carrying an absolute nobody of a partner. Not idea, but possible.

2)Finding good RHD can be a long and winding road, so there's an argument in that to just keep Hronek.



As far as the McCann thing...i feel like he was despised when he was drafted, because of the whole hilarious "meat and potatoes" thing which people took in altogether the wrong way. When at the end of the day...he's really more sizzle and flash than anything else. But yeah...he was generally pretty well-liked here when he was dealt for Real Gud. A lot of people mad about that all over again. :laugh:

The whole expansion thing with Pittsburgh...and Toronto was just...odd. It just never really made any sense to me from either angle...and that was before he absolutely blew up and showed that he could score the way he has for Seattle. He was looking a lot more like a streaky, wildly inconsistent middle-6 tweener at the time...but still better than other guys both teams kept over him. Though some of that was also forced by NMCs i believe.


I think this staff have definitely been much improved in their ability to find serviceable defenceman. Specifically, guys who will work in Ricky Toks system. Which gives me a decent amount more confidence if they do end up back scouring the wastelands for a Hronek replacement. But you can't just replace him with a bunch of Ian Coles, Nikta Zadorovs, etc. You have to find a similar caliber, "like for like" replacement. Whether that's a RD/LD, pivoting to a second more "balanced" pairing or whatever it is...you've gotta bring in a quality Top-3D if you're moving Hronek out. Because that's what he is...and we really need more of those, not less. So if you're making that move, it has to be about reallocating salary cap for a deeper blueline overall, but without taking a big step back at the top of the roster. Tough trick to pull off, but i'd kind of like to see it.
 

pitseleh

Registered User
Jul 30, 2005
19,299
3,091
Vancouver
They allegedly offered him $6.5 per year over 8 years after they re-signed Pettersson, which he rejected.

They didn't want to meet his asking price then, and I can't imagine they've seen anything to change their mind.

It's important to avoid a sunk cost fallacy with the assets they've expended. The only question going forward is whether he delivers excess value on a $64m contract. I'd argue it's a stretch to say he will.
I expect that is just a standard negotiation tactic. They know they will need to pay him UFA prices, and he is closer to Dougie Hamilton than Damon Severson, especially when you consider age. Top defencemen, especially RD, just don't hit the market often so you're generally paying a premium for him. I agree he is probably not going to provide excess value, and that if they didn't value him accordingly it would be a sunk cost fallacy to pay him.

But his 2023/24 was basically the same as his 2022/23 from an overall value perspective, so he's still the player they felt was worth two quality assets. And I expect they place a scarcity value to top RD, especially since Tocchet seems very reluctant to play D on their offside, that pushes up his value to the team.
Technically, unless i'm misunderstanding something...in the event that the team forces Hronek to elect for arbitration, they could keep him for a 2-year payday based on that arbitration award. Problem is...i'm not really sure that arb award for him ends up being that much lower than the $8M he's allegedly seeking. There are some absolutely doofy comparables out there. I don't think he's in the same tier of player as a lot of those instances, but statistically he's going to be able to make a case that he is, based on what he did this year. Which is where again...he has all the leverage.
Can't elect two years for a player who is only one year from UFA.
 

biturbo19

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
26,992
12,152
I expect that is just a standard negotiation tactic. They know they will need to pay him UFA prices, and he is closer to Dougie Hamilton than Damon Severson, especially when you consider age. Top defencemen, especially RD, just don't hit the market often so you're generally paying a premium for him. I agree he is probably not going to provide excess value, and that if they didn't value him accordingly it would be a sunk cost fallacy to pay him.

But his 2023/24 was basically the same as his 2022/23 from an overall value perspective, so he's still the player they felt was worth two quality assets. And I expect they place a scarcity value to top RD, especially since Tocchet seems very reluctant to play D on their offside, that pushes up his value to the team.

Can't elect two years for a player who is only one year from UFA.

Ahhh. Yeah weird caveat.

Regardless...i don't think that changes anything. It's not a good road to go down in this situation.


Just sign him long-term, or trade him. One or the other. 1-year award max because of his impending UFA status just makes that even more clearly a bad approach to take.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
24,281
11,351
It is just unbelievable. The media and fanbase harped on for years about how this team needed a RHD. It was the biggest talking point in the market for 2 years. We get one, who led the team in 5/5 ice time and now everyone's just like "meh, lets get rid of him".



Presumably you were also against giving 3 goal , minus 24 Hughs a long term 7.8 md deal ?
Hughes 21 and had already shown what he might be capable of despite the off year, Hronek is 26 and basically what you saw in Detroit is what he is.

is that worth $8 million and term, nope but what are the alternatives?

Maybe they take him to arbitration and ride out the year and hope for something else to emerge after the 24-25 season not really sure there is no clear right path here.

Personably and there is some risk here of course, is that I would sign him to a one year arbitration deal and wait on Willander or some other UFA coming due after 25 but there is a lot of risk to that given that we made it to game 7 in the second round against the possible SC champs so expectations might drive the short term decision over the better long term one.

Frankly I dunno, maybe Tanev comes back?
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
19,324
6,279
I expect that is just a standard negotiation tactic. They know they will need to pay him UFA prices, and he is closer to Dougie Hamilton than Damon Severson, especially when you consider age. Top defencemen, especially RD, just don't hit the market often so you're generally paying a premium for him. I agree he is probably not going to provide excess value, and that if they didn't value him accordingly it would be a sunk cost fallacy to pay him.

Hronek is not close to Hamilton. If I remember correctly, Hamilton spent years with top 3 shots and expected goals per 60 before signing his current contract. Offensively, he was/is consistently among the elite.
 

pitseleh

Registered User
Jul 30, 2005
19,299
3,091
Vancouver
Hronek is not close to Hamilton. If I remember correctly, Hamilton spent years with top 3 shots and expected goals per 60 before signing his current contract. Offensively, he was/is consistently among the elite.

Obviously he is not as good as Hamilton. That’s why I said closer to, not close to.
 

Zaddy91

Respectful Handshake
Jul 22, 2014
9,714
773
Vancouver
Handled the puck like a grenade in playoffs. Keeping us get hemmed in and probably a major reason we arnt playing Dallas.

Really hope we trade his rights to a rebuilding team for a cheaper RHD. and sign Tanev.
 

archangel2

Registered User
May 19, 2019
2,606
1,658
Now that I have seen his exit interview? I now know why Yserman dumped him. this guy has issues
 

strattonius

Registered User
Jul 4, 2011
4,523
5,032
Surrey, BC
You guys are taking his attitude with the media way too seriously.

Now we should trade him; we can see why Yzerman traded him; he's a lockeroom cancer; and his second half play is what we're going to get infinitely moving forward.

Hronek had an overreaction to a question that triggered his pride. I see a player that has been trying to figure out why his game isn't where he wanted it to be the latter half of the season and when asked about it he saw red. Let's move on from character issue arguments. The irony is some of you are overreacting to Hronek's overreaction. This media interaction will change nothing from what management is planning with Hronek.
 

bossram

Registered User
Sep 25, 2013
16,517
16,769
Victoria
He came off as a douche to Patterson but lol at assuming he’s like that toward teammates
Yep. Apparently he's never really done media in Detroit either.

My view on Hronek's comments are the same as Petey's comments from The Interview that some people here had a freak out over: Basically meaningless.

IMO ideally they can retain Hronek at an AAV in the low 7s. If they can't get there, then the only option is trade.
 

JAK

Non-registered User
Jul 10, 2010
4,653
4,351
The media doesn't care about facts, they care about facts that they can write about.

They would love to spin this one single Hronek reply for another week's worth of articles.
 

Brookbank

Registered User
Nov 15, 2022
1,939
1,837
Hronek is not close to Hamilton. If I remember correctly, Hamilton spent years with top 3 shots and expected goals per 60 before signing his current contract. Offensively, he was/is consistently among the elite.
Hamilton is 3 years older. I don't know why everyone assumes Hronek has already peaked.

Tanev has been a beast all playoff. IMO, better than any Canucks dman. Letting him go in the first place just shows how much of an idiot Benning is.
Tanev is old news and no long or even medium term solution
 

Canuckle1970

Registered User
Mar 24, 2010
7,149
6,303
Paying him more than Hughes is out of the question.

Is he a #1 D without Hughes? I don't think so. But he's a RD who worked well with Hughes, so $6.5 tops to keep him.

Otherwise, sayonara.
 

Brookbank

Registered User
Nov 15, 2022
1,939
1,837
Yep. Apparently he's never really done media in Detroit either.

My view on Hronek's comments are the same as Petey's comments from The Interview that some people here had a freak out over: Basically meaningless.

IMO ideally they can retain Hronek at an AAV in the low 7s. If they can't get there, then the only option is trade.
Low 7's. I'll go mid 7's. Either way , the disagreement on price is around 500 to 700k. It isn't worth going through the trouble of moving a player and making RHD the biggest organizational need again over 5 to 700k.

Everyone harps on about all the great RHD free agents. Jesus do ppl have short memories.

Most of the time , players get to free agency because the team they play on don't think they are worth what they stand to get. Just like we moved on from Kyle Burroughs or Christian Erhoff. Or Ed Jovonovski.

Paying him more than Hughes is out of the question.

Is he a #1 D without Hughes? I don't think so. But he's a RD who worked well with Hughes, so $6.5 tops to keep him.

Otherwise, sayonara.
Why does everyone assume that Hronek profited from being with Hughs but Hughs never gained anything from Hronek ?

What kind of team success did we have with poverty Dmen with Hughs again?
 

Canuckle1970

Registered User
Mar 24, 2010
7,149
6,303
Low 7's. I'll go mid 7's. Either way , the disagreement on price is around 500 to 700k. It isn't worth going through the trouble of moving a player and making RHD the biggest organizational need again over 5 to 700k.

Everyone harps on about all the great RHD free agents. Jesus do ppl have short memories.

Most of the time , players get to free agency because the team they play on don't think they are worth what they stand to get. Just like we moved on from Kyle Burroughs or Christian Erhoff. Or Ed Jovonovski.


Why does everyone assume that Hronek profited from being with Hughs but Hughs never gained anything from Hronek ?

What kind of team success did we have with poverty Dmen with Hughs again?
I said in my post that he worked well with Hughes - meaning they each benefited. But I don't see Hronek as a 1D with any of the other Canucks defensemen, while I can with Hughes.

Ergo, he doesn't rate $8 million on our team. As I stated, I'm fine with keeping him at $6.5 max.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad