Will you be Mad at Hamhuis if He doesnt waive his NTC??

[Index]

Disappointed but not mad.

You and I both know that's not true.

 

[mathonwy]

Wouldn't be mad at him if he didn't waive, but then he has to re-sign. It has to be one or the other. If it's neither, then he deserves some criticism, IMO. Because if you're at the stage he is at, you must make a decision as to your long-term future either way. To refuse either path means that he's overly confused.

So logically yes.

But realistically, what's Trader Jim presenting to Hammer right now?

One can speculate as much as they want on what's holding stuff up but at the end of the day, it's Jimbo that's the one that's structuring and driving the deal.

And the one thing I know for a fact is that Jimbo is not a deal maker.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Nope, not at all.

1) Hamhuis left money on the table to be here long term. He's well within his right to stay here.

2) It's actually a bad move on the Canucks' part to trade Hamhuis without any guarnatees of him coming back. Why? Because - the Canucks are already thin on defense and potentially losing someone of Hamhuis' calibre (without an equal replacement) could hurt the rebuilding process. Hutton would be put into a role where he'd likely be too green for, while the strain on the developing Markstrom would be even greater (backing what would be an even weaker defense)

If anything, the Canucks should be looking to ADD to their defense, while ensuring the continued development of both Hutton and Pedan. Sign Hammer to a longer term cap friendly hit.

Once a guy like Hutton proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's ready for Top 4 duty, you can then move a guy like Edler who'd fetch more in a trade than Hamhuis anyways.

 

[serge2k]

Hell no, Hamhuis is awesome.

I would also be happy if he was traded to Chicago and won a cup.

 

[Verviticus]

Wouldn't be mad at him if he didn't waive, but then he has to re-sign. It has to be one or the other. If it's neither, then he deserves some criticism, IMO. Because if you're at the stage he is at, you must make a decision as to your long-term future either way. To refuse either path means that he's overly confused.

i dunno. i think his ntc gives him the moral right to change his mind between now and june

 

[Carl Carlson]

Doubt he waives. I hope he does but I have little faith that anything will go right for us at the trade deadline.

 

[opendoor]

Wouldn't be mad at him if he didn't waive, but then he has to re-sign. It has to be one or the other. If it's neither, then he deserves some criticism, IMO. Because if you're at the stage he is at, you must make a decision as to your long-term future either way. To refuse either path means that he's overly confused.

I get the impression that if he doesn't re-sign that it'll be because the Canucks don't want to re-sign him. Everything I've seen suggests that he wants to stay.

 

[Wilch]

I get the impression that if he doesn't re-sign that it'll be because the Canucks don't want to re-sign him. Everything I've seen suggests that he wants to stay.

There's a real possibility that Jimbo is unable to move Hamhuis, and Hamhuis decides not to sign to stay around for this mess.

 

[Horse McHindu]

There's a real possibility that Jimbo is unable to move Hamhuis, and Hamhuis decides not to sign to stay around for this mess.

According to Hamhuis' interview on Team 1040, he looks like he definitely wants to stay here long term. Obviously, there are instances where players say things in front of the media to mask their true feelings, but Hamhuis definitely seems like he wants to stay.

Check out the interview on 1040 and come up with your own conclusions.

 

[Hammer79]

Of course as a Canucks fan I want him to waive. However, Hamhuis paid for his NTC with reduced salary, he doesn't owe us anything. It's his decision and I hope the fans don't start hating on him if he refuses to waive.

 

[Hit the post]

There's a real possibility that Jimbo is unable to move Hamhuis, and Hamhuis decides not to sign to stay around for this mess.

It would take a really awful GM to be unable to re-sign Hamhuis - who actually wants to stay on the team.

 

[oceanchild]

No, he took a discount and wants to resign. He was a part of some great Canucks teams and he deserves credit for being a good guy. If he says no I got to believe it's for good reason.

 

[Street Hawk]

Nope, not at all.

1) Hamhuis left money on the table to be here long term. He's well within his right to stay here.

2) It's actually a bad move on the Canucks' part to trade Hamhuis without any guarnatees of him coming back. Why? Because - the Canucks are already thin on defense and potentially losing someone of Hamhuis' calibre (without an equal replacement) could hurt the rebuilding process. Hutton would be put into a role where he'd likely be too green for, while the strain on the developing Markstrom would be even greater (backing what would be an even weaker defense)

If anything, the Canucks should be looking to ADD to their defense, while ensuring the continued development of both Hutton and Pedan. Sign Hammer to a longer term cap friendly hit.

Once a guy like Hutton proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's ready for Top 4 duty, you can then move a guy like Edler who'd fetch more in a trade than Hamhuis anyways.

1) Agreed, so it's his call

2) Canucks on D for next season have Tanev 27, Edler 30, Hutton 22, Scisba 27 are signed as regular in the group of 6. Biega is signed as a #7. Pedan a #7. I would be scared to have both of them on the roster at the same time unless one of them was up as an injury call up. They just dealt for Larsen as a potential #6 guy on the right side. So, as it stands right now, the Canucks have 1 spot left in their top 6. Maybe 2 if they are open to having Biega and Pedan in Utica as injury call ups.
Always a chance to move Elder or Scisba, but nothing can be assured.

As for moving Edler, there is a difference of 3 years in age, plus he has a full NTC as well.

For Hamhuis, his decision is this:
a) Give a list of teams he would accept a trade to. Why, because he gets a chance to win the cup, something he won't do with the Canucks. At age 33, the Canucks won't be a Cup contender before he retires. Playoff team, there is a chance. He does have the option to sign with any team in the summer. Depending on whether the players exercise the escalator, the Cap will likely be pretty flat next season, so can't see a contender offering Hammer a can't turn it down deal prior to July 1.
b) Tell JB no, and negotiate an extension.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

I would be disappointed but I don't think it would overly effect how I view Hamhuis as a Canuck.

 

[Pavel96]

Making up reasons to hate someone is fun?

it's not just 'making up reasons' and actually getting mad about them. it's just that as crazy and made up as things we put in our posts were... my point, underlyingly, was that he'll end up making some trade that's even more bizarre in another way that almost no one saw coming and we're all then literally like what the heck.

 

[iFan]

Not at all, he earned the right and no one should feel he should pick up and leave his family behind so we can get a draft pick. Hamhuis has been great to us and I hope he retires here.

 

[Josepho]

Disappointed, but not mad. That guy has been fantastic for us for a long time.

 

[tyhee]

I sometimes laugh but other times scowl at how people expect loyalty from players but none from the team.

Garrison was on a no-trade and some have posted that they're pleased Benning managed to move him. It was the same with Bieksa.

Now there are people saying they won't be mad at Hamhuis for refusing to waive if he signs an extension with the Canucks but they will be if he doesn't. Not only does he have the right to decide, but since the Canucks could have offered him an extension and instead went public last fall but instead chose to go public that they would wait and see, why should he feel any obligation?

It would be selfish and petty to be mad at him for exercising the contract he negotiated. No, I won't be mad at him if he declines to waive his contractual rights.

 

[Cupless44]

It would take a really awful GM to be unable to re-sign Hamhuis - who actually wants to stay on the team.

Not an easy slam dunk situation actually. Depends on what kind of contract he wants. He isn't what he used to be, is 33, the team is trying to get younger. What if he wants big money and 4 years? How good do you think he will be at 36, 37?

Dream scenario, he gets traded for assets and comes back in the summer on a good contract. But if he agrees to waive and plays well in the playoffs he isn't coming back asking for a low contract.

 

[JA]

I would hope that he can be convinced to be traded and then re-sign with Vancouver in the summer.

 

[Royal Canuck]

I have the utmost respect for Hamhuis.

Whatever path he chooses, I approve.

 

[Skirbs1011]

I'll be bitter as hell, if he said no trade I would throw him on waivers and send him to utica just because it's farther than Chicago.

He has to realize it's for the betterment of the franchise if he loves van so much he would sacrifice 4 months to go win a Stanley Cup ring, let van get pieces to help build with and then re-sign in the off-season.

As well with the deals Coburn and Matta just signed he might want to go get his value up

 

[opendoor]

I'll be bitter as hell, if he said no trade I would throw him on waivers and send him to utica just because it's farther than Chicago.

He has to realize it's for the betterment of the franchise if he loves van so much he would sacrifice 4 months to go win a Stanley Cup ring, let van get pieces to help build with and then re-sign in the off-season.

As well with the deals Coburn and Matta just signed he might want to go get his value up

What if Vancouver doesn't want to sign him in the off-season? They'd basically be telling him to move twice in the next 7 months to benefit a team that doesn't even want him any more.

 

[Cupless44]

Prepare to be disappointed.

Botch reporting Chicago has moved on. Teams like the Hawks do not leave their moves until the last minute. Hamhuis waffling is taking too long on whether to waive. He is leaving Canucks little room and no time. It is already Friday and Hamhuis hasn't decided??

It is a bit annoying for fans starved for a good move to salvage a dismal season. I understand Hamhuis has the right and been a good Canuck and all...but his play for most of the season has not been very good. Not sure I even want 4 more years of it.

 

[Scumbag Frank]

Prepare to be disappointed.

Botch reporting Chicago has moved on. Teams like the Hawks do not leave their moves until the last minute. Hamhuis waffling is taking too long on whether to waive. He is leaving Canucks little room and no time. It is already Friday and Hamhuis hasn't decided??

It is a bit annoying for fans starved for a good move to salvage a dismal season. I understand Hamhuis has the right and been a good Canuck and all...but his play for most of the season has not been very good. Not sure I even want 4 more years of it.

He hasn't even been asked to waive yet so he's not the one waffling