TRADE or KEEP Hronek?

[Drew Doubty]

If you look at the path the Canucks have to take to go from 2nd round team to contender, it involves at least 2 guys besides Hughes being excellent at transitioning the puck up the ice.

While Hronek wasn't that in the playoffs or for the last 25-30 games of the season, he's likely our most realistic bet to get back to that level. While there are other holes that need to be addressed, moving on puts us right back to where we started before Alvin made the string of moves to revamp the blueline.

Obviously, price is going to be a sticking point, but everything we've heard so far is par for the course. The agent is leaking outrageous numbers to his mouthpiece, which is to be expected. Ideally, given the weak playoffs and the second half stutter, you get him around 7 million with the back half of that contract looking great if he gets back into form.

Finding quality, RHD in their prime years who fit your system and structure is an extremely difficult task, and the Canucks still need one more on top of Hronek. Free agency is going to be even pricier than Hronek, and for 3+ less prime years as well.

This is what I'm thinking too. Like sure, 7.5 mill/year sounds expensive, but who do you replace him with? There are what 15-20 better right-handed D in existence. I'd rather pay to get off Mikheyev to get the cap space we need than trade Hronek, unless there's a magic trade to be pulled off. Weegar or Theodore might be good targets.

 

[StreetHawk]

He led the team in 5/5 ice time. Which made the rest of the D look better with less ice time.

We will probably bridge him and then he will go full Erhoff and then we are really screwed. D men peak later and Hronek isn't at his peak yet.

I'd rather sign him for 5-6 years at 7.5 instead.


And then look to sign Ethan Bear or what ?

Takes 2 sides to agree to a deal. From Hronek’s POV he was from 2016 draft this is 26. Hits ufa in 2025. He’s not bridging Ala Gravikov. Cap has already risen for next season when his deal begins. It’s a risk to go short term.

Never know with injureies. Seen the likes of Ellis, Landy, Little get hurt early into their big ufa contract. Thus would rather have the security of the extra 5/6 years.

He can opt for arbitration and hit ufa next season, again with risk.

 

[pitseleh]

Walsh knows that Hronek has all the leverage - he can take the team to arbitration, get a one year payday because of Hronek’s points and minutes, then have Hronek hit the market as the best UFA defender perhaps since Dougie Hamilton and under a rising cap. I’d be shocked if he got less than $8 million per year on the open market, and he would probably get much more.

The team would have known that would be the case when they traded two premium assets for him. They must have felt comfortable with signing him long term at market rates. I can’t see them taking the risk of a one year deal that let’s him walk at the end, or changing their views on him as a player based on ~40 games when he was likely hurt, particularly since they want to contend and he will be basically impossible to replace with the assets the team currently has.

Given that, my guess would be the team grinds him as much as they can over the next month then signs him before QOs go out.

In theory they could trade him then use the assets they acquire to get someone else, but his value will be much less than it was a year ago if a team has to sign him to a UFA deal. That’s return is unlikely to get you a cost controlled player, and adding someone like Lekkerimaki or Willander to make it work is one step forward one step back.

 

[iFan]

at 8 million its 100% trade, we can't tie that amount of cap space for him.

 

[Pure West]

Him asking for 8 is part of the negotiation process and I doubt he hits that number. I'm fine with low 7s and replacing him is gonna be expensive. I think we need the puck movers as god forbid if Hughes went down to injury at a point next year we're gonna need someone who is somewhat competent at moving the puck.

To those saying trade him: Consider that if someone is willing to trade significant assets for him and pay him 8 million a season, that likely means acquiring a replacement will come at a similar acquisition cost.

Maybe he'd be willing to sign a 2-3 year deal at 7 and hit UFA at the age of 29? We'll see what he's looking for.

 

[Brookbank]

at 8 million its 100% trade, we can't tie that amount of cap space for him.

Talk is cheap. Who is going to be the top pair RHD?

 

[Hit the post]

at 8 million its 100% trade, we can't tie that amount of cap space for him.

Problem is, player has a lot of leverage. Team will be hard pressed to replace his minutes. Could mean a guy like Myers if he's re-signed playing more minutes. In sheltered/controlled minutes, Myers is fine. If not, chaos giraffe.

 

[bossram]

These types of questions are entirely dependent on the contracts involved.

As has been said... what is the contract...

I don't just qualify him though... I either sign with term or trade him

Depends on the number he's asking.

Yep. Correct viewpoint. Like, it's not a binary answer. It depends on the contract terms involved.

Qualify and evaluate on a prove me deal

He's not accepting a QO. If there's no contract, he will elect for arbitration.

 

[Brookbank]

Him asking for 8 is part of the negotiation process and I doubt he hits that number. I'm fine with low 7s and replacing him is gonna be expensive. I think we need the puck movers as god forbid if Hughes went down to injury at a point next year we're gonna need someone who is somewhat competent at moving the puck.

To those saying trade him: Consider that if someone is willing to trade significant assets for him and pay him 8 million a season, that likely means acquiring a replacement will come at a similar acquisition cost.

Maybe he'd be willing to sign a 2-3 year deal at 7 and hit UFA at the age of 29? We'll see what he's looking for.

In a way , we are lucky that he had a so so second half. Imagine he was elite all season long. 8 would be the floor.

Right now we have the opportunity to get term in the mid 7's.

And if he gets a bridge and plays elite , we are looking at 9+ which should be avoided.

I can't believe ppl think signing Tanev is even a medium term term option.

 

[tyhee]

They paid a good price to get him and knew the risks of his RFA status. The path is set. Sign him.

The path is never set by what was given up for him. That is done and in the past and can't be recovered. Thinking it is set by what happened before is an example of the sunk cost fallacy.

You are where you are. You can't go back and simply get back what you paid for him. What matters is what he can produce now, what it costs to have him do that and what you could get instead if you traded him.

Similarly, you can't treat this as if it was poker and you felt pot committed. In poker a pot can get so big that the cost of staying in is so small relative to the amount there to be won that the odds are in favour of staying in. Here there is no huge pot to be won. You can look completely at whether what you get back by trading him is more than you get by keeping him-and that doesn't depend in any way by what you have already given up to get him.

All those people who are saying it depends on the cost are right-and it isn't just his salary cost but what you could get if you trade him now.

What you gave up to get him might affect a weak general manager concerned with losing face if a trade is made to look bad, but for the sake of the team that should have nothing to do with making current decisions.

 

[strattonius]

I think he's too important to trade BUT if he doesn't budge from 8M then we'll see you in arbitration and a trade further down the road.

 

[iFan]

Talk is cheap. Who is going to be the top pair RHD?

if you think he's a true top pairing RHD then you pay him that. I don't believe he has enough of a track record to get that. His play fell off in the second half of the season or when he wasn't with Hughes. Canucks need to clear cap in a big way to keep Hronek at 8 million per season. I like Hronek and hope we can keep him but 8 million really handcuffs the teams cap.

 

[thecupismine]

Walsh knows that Hronek has all the leverage - he can take the team to arbitration, get a one year payday because of Hronek’s points and minutes, then have Hronek hit the market as the best UFA defender perhaps since Dougie Hamilton and under a rising cap. I’d be shocked if he got less than $8 million per year on the open market, and he would probably get much more.

The team would have known that would be the case when they traded two premium assets for him. They must have felt comfortable with signing him long term at market rates. I can’t see them taking the risk of a one year deal that let’s him walk at the end, or changing their views on him as a player based on ~40 games when he was likely hurt, particularly since they want to contend and he will be basically impossible to replace with the assets the team currently has.

Given that, my guess would be the team grinds him as much as they can over the next month then signs him before QOs go out.

In theory they could trade him then use the assets they acquire to get someone else, but his value will be much less than it was a year ago if a team has to sign him to a UFA deal. That’s return is unlikely to get you a cost controlled player, and adding someone like Lekkerimaki or Willander to make it work is one step forward one step back.

Fully agreed. Like many others here, I was frustrated with his play in the second half, but that first half of the season sealed his market value - all it takes is one person next off-season to think he can play like that all the time to put his contract through the roof.

The math here is pretty simple. The Canucks need a top pairing dman, along with at least one more top 4 guy who can transition the puck well, to reach contending status. They also need help up front for Petey, along with filling out their bottom 6.

If you don't sign Hronek, you're going to have to allocate the limited assets remaining for that top pairing player, or overpay to sign one for closer to 9-10 million in free agency, who will be older and much more likely to go into decline in the near future. That takes away from your forward depth or your asset pool to find Petey a winger.

Being one year away from UFA also limits his trade value. If you could get an absolute haul for him then maybe the conversation changes, but that also suggests that there's a small number of dmen available (thus the haul), which puts us back at square one of looking for a top pairing player.

Others could argue he's not a top pairing guy and is more like the player in the second half of the season. This is fair - my counterpoint would be I don't think there's a path to contention in the next 2-3 years if that's the case without an outrageous number of things going our way. The cost to replace is way too high.

The path to getting to a contender level is going to involve some calculated risks, and banking on Hronek rebounding to somewhere between his 1st and 2nd half form is one of them.

 

[Snatcher Demko]

I think management should shop him around and see if we can get a RHD with some size or a bigger winger in return (or a long-term C option). Someone on the younger side. Also does Hronek have a shoulder problem?

The issue I have with Hronek is that unless he can carry his own pairing I'm not sure how much better he's next to QH relative to a Tanev or similar player.

Too bad we didn't see him have an extended look with Soucy or Zadorov for example.

I'd like to think that Willander could take his spot in 1-2 years but that's not realistic and would put too much pressure on the kid (though I think he's solid enough defensively).

 

[StreetHawk]

I think management should shop him around and see if we can get a RHD with some size or a bigger winger in return (or a long-term C option). Someone on the younger side. Also does Hronek have a shoulder problem?

The issue I have with Hronek is that unless he can carry his own pairing I'm not sure how much better he's next to QH relative to a Tanev or similar player.

Too bad we didn't see him have an extended look with Soucy or Zadorov for example.

I'd like to think that Willander could take his spot in 1-2 years but that's not realistic and would put too much pressure on the kid (though I think he's solid enough defensively).

It would be ideal for Wallinder to have someone ahead of him on the RHD depth chart when he does arrive during his ELC. With or without Hronek, Nucks still need more Dmen especially on the right side.

 

[Bleach Clean]

The path is never set by what was given up for him. That is done and in the past and can't be recovered. Thinking it is set by what happened before is an example of the sunk cost fallacy.

You are where you are. You can't go back and simply get back what you paid for him. What matters is what he can produce now, what it costs to have him do that and what you could get instead if you traded him.

Similarly, you can't treat this as if it was poker and you felt pot committed. In poker a pot can get so big that the cost of staying in is so small relative to the amount there to be won that the odds are in favour of staying in. Here there is no huge pot to be won. You can look completely at whether what you get back by trading him is more than you get by keeping him-and that doesn't depend in any way by what you have already given up to get him.

All those people who are saying it depends on the cost are right-and it isn't just his salary cost but what you could get if you trade him now.

What you gave up to get him might affect a weak general manager concerned with losing face if a trade is made to look bad, but for the sake of the team that should have nothing to do with making current decisions.

I think you're dismissing it because you see the sunk cost fallacy at play. It's instead scarcity and the cost is a factor added on top. It's not the reason to, but the added incentive to. They paid a premium to get him because mid-aged RHDs are rare targets. If that's still true, then overpaying to keep him still aligns with that initial rationale.

Either RHDs are valuable, and you pay the inflated ticket to keep them, or they're not and they get traded like the average player.

Stretching beyond their limit makes sense based upon what they've done. Oh, and don't wait for the arb award. Sign him long term so that even if they're overpaying in the short term, they can more easily get out long-term, given the rising cap.

 

[Ernie]

Walsh knows that Hronek has all the leverage - he can take the team to arbitration, get a one year payday because of Hronek’s points and minutes, then have Hronek hit the market as the best UFA defender perhaps since Dougie Hamilton and under a rising cap. I’d be shocked if he got less than $8 million per year on the open market, and he would probably get much more.

The team would have known that would be the case when they traded two premium assets for him. They must have felt comfortable with signing him long term at market rates. I can’t see them taking the risk of a one year deal that let’s him walk at the end, or changing their views on him as a player based on ~40 games when he was likely hurt, particularly since they want to contend and he will be basically impossible to replace with the assets the team currently has.

Given that, my guess would be the team grinds him as much as they can over the next month then signs him before QOs go out.

In theory they could trade him then use the assets they acquire to get someone else, but his value will be much less than it was a year ago if a team has to sign him to a UFA deal. That’s return is unlikely to get you a cost controlled player, and adding someone like Lekkerimaki or Willander to make it work is one step forward one step back.

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.

It's not clear that he can carry a pairing as a #1 defenceman. As for his pairing with Hughes, how much value does he add there? Does it make any sense to have $20m+ as a top pairing in 3 years when Hughes' contract expires? Maybe the team would be better off experimenting with some moderate cost options there. After these playoffs, it's apparent that some additional size on his pairing might be a good idea.

I think Tanev has probably priced himself out of this market, but I still think it would be a safer bet giving him $15m vs the amount they'd have to pay Hronek.

 

[tyhee]

I think you're dismissing it because you see the sunk cost fallacy at play. ...

No, in fact I didn't dismiss extending Hronek at all. I just dismissed the sunk cost fallacy one liner that said

"They paid a good price to get him and knew the risks of his RFA status. The path is set. Sign him."

It was that illogical reasoning I took issue with. Since I don't know what they could get if they trade him nor what they'd be able to extend him for, I don't take any position on extending him or trading him.

It doesn't matter whether they paid a good price for him, that doesn't set an irrevocable path.

 

[Bleach Clean]

No, in fact I didn't dismiss extending Hronek at all. I just dismissed the sunk cost fallacy one liner that said

"They paid a good price to get him and knew the risks of his RFA status. The path is set. Sign him."

It was that illogical reasoning I took issue with. Since I don't know what they could get if they trade him nor what they'd be able to extend him for, I don't take any position on extending him or trading him.

It doesn't matter whether they paid a good price for him, that doesn't set an irrevocable path.

That's what I pointed out: Dismissing the rationale for extending him due to Sunk Cost, but sunk cost is not the primary reason to stay on path, it's scarcity and sunk cost is the added incentive on top.

It still matters what they paid. What they paid signifies scarcity, but it is itself not the reason to extend him, scarcity is... If they still believe in positional value, that is.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

It all comes down to his contract demands. If he remains steadfast on 8M, he can find that somewhere else. On the other hand, if he's willing to come down to a reasonable figure, I don't see any concerns bringing him back.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Him asking for 8 is part of the negotiation process and I doubt he hits that number. I'm fine with low 7s and replacing him is gonna be expensive. I think we need the puck movers as god forbid if Hughes went down to injury at a point next year we're gonna need someone who is somewhat competent at moving the puck.

To those saying trade him: Consider that if someone is willing to trade significant assets for him and pay him 8 million a season, that likely means acquiring a replacement will come at a similar acquisition cost.

Maybe he'd be willing to sign a 2-3 year deal at 7 and hit UFA at the age of 29? We'll see what he's looking for.

A very well thought out post.

The dearth of puck movers on this team is half of what prevented it form advancing. Sure, the dmen were big, but they were not nearly quick enough to move the puck to the first man. EDM knew this and forechecked them into oblivion.

Aside from Hughes, Hronek is the only one capable of playing the style necessary to reach a new level. I was not a fan of the trade, but he's here now and they can't keep spinning their wheels to chase value. Pay him.

(I think the draft will be the next pressure point)

 

[Nuckles]

Canucks and Hronek haven't had contract talks in months, they never got to the point of making offers/counter-offers. No urgency to get a deal done.

What we're hearing about the Canucks' offseason priorities

The Canucks will have a very different look when training camp opens in the fall. What are management's top priorities this offseason?

www.nytimes.com

And all indications are that Hronek’s preference is to find common ground on a suitable agreement to stay in a city that he enjoyed living in and playing in, with an organization that treated him well throughout his first Canucks campaign.

...there’s been little progress in talks between Hronek’s camp and Canucks management to this point.

Not only has there been little progress, but based on what we’re hearing, there haven’t been active negotiations in months.

There’s some feeling in hockey circles that Hronek’s asking price is in the $8 million-per-season range. The popular sentiment we’re hearing is that if the Canucks thought that was a reasonable number, they would have signed their top-pair right-handed defender by now.

...the sense we’re getting is that there’s no urgency from either side in expediting contract talks at this juncture.

 

[Brookbank]

It all comes down to his contract demands. If he remains steadfast on 8M, he can find that somewhere else. On the other hand, if he's willing to come down to a reasonable figure, I don't see any concerns bringing him back.

7.5 , yes or no ?

 

[rea]

7.5 , yes or no ?

Nyet

 

[604]

Very good player and was an excellent trade. Just need to use that money to fill other needs on the roster. If we didn’t have Hughes he’d be the number 1 priority. Life in the Salary Cap era, all about Cap and roster management.

What need do we have that is more important than #1 RD?

IMO, this is a terrible POV.