Byfuglien re-signs with Jets, what does that mean for Hamhuis?

Ryan Biech
February 09 2016 09:00AM

It was announced yesterday that the Winnipeg Jets and Dustin Byfuglien agreed to a long-term contract extension. Five years at $7.6 Million per for Big Buff. But we are Canucks Army - not Jets Nation - so how does that relate to the team we cover?

Put simply, news of this extension is of the great variety for Canucks fans as it relates to potentially moving pending unrestricted free agent Dan Hamhuis. Suddenly the Canucks arguably have the best rental defenceman on the market.

Screen Shot 2016-02-08 at 12.30.21 PM

The image above shows the pending unrestricted free agents on the blue line (c/o General Fanager).

Looking at the list, it's relatively clear which pieces will or won't be in play. At the top is Brian Campbell, who likely won't be moved given his heavy workload on the Atlantic Division leading Florida Panthers - cross him off the list. Keith Yandle was acquired by the New York Rangers last year to put them over the top; it hasn't worked, but with Ryan McDonagh on the shelf with a concussion, the chances of the Blue Shirts moving Yandle are low.

Byfuglien just got paid. He isn't going anywhere. Alex Goligoski plays first pairing minutes for the Dallas Stars, who look poised to make the playoffs. Dallas would be looking to acquire a defenceman, not move one. *cough Hamhuis *cough*. 

Nikita Nikitin:

Though the Tampa Bay Lightning's struggles on and off the ice are well documented, they remain a contending side in the Eastern Conference. Don't see them cutting ties with Braydon Coburn given the circumstances. Last but not least (thanks to Nikitin), Kyle Quincey. He is in the same boat as Coburn. Detroit Red Wings are in the playoff hunt, so it's very unlikely that they would move him.

On the peripheries are a few lower profile defenders - Roman Polak comes to mind - but for the most part, we've covered the best and most highly coveted defencemen available.

Which brings us to Dan Hamhuis. By default, Hamhuis is the best rental option on the market.

On the one hand, Hamhuis is just returning from a 21-game absence facilitated by a Dan Boyle slapshot to the jaw. Depending who you ask, Hamhuis hasn't enjoyed the most successful season either. There is, however, definitely a case to be made that Hamhuis is suffering the side effects of playing on an objectively horrible roster.

It's worth mentioning though that Hamhuis was one of Vancouver's better players on Saturday against the Calgary Flames. Based on Hamhuis' play historically, we should also be able to expect him to be a dependable, play driving and chance limiting defender down the stretch. So-so year or otherwise, it doesn't take away from his plus value on a shrinking rental market for contending teams looking to go over the top.

The Canucks just played  21 games without him, so missing him for the final 21 games after the deadline isn't much of a difference.

This space has long been used to advocate prudent management skills and liquidate their expiring contracts for futures. Regardless where your underlying long-term vision stands for this franchise, the time is now for the Canucks to be on the extortionist side of the trade deadline. Now that Hamhuis is - in theory - the best available rental defencemen available, the Canucks would be fools not to capitalize on this. 

Even if you foresee a future with Hamhuis on the Canucks blue line, it's not like there isn't a precedent for that to happen. Look at what the Arizona Coyotes did with Antione Vermette. The Coyotes moved Vermette to a contender, he got his cup then re-signed with the Coyotes on the cheap. 

There is the stumbling block of Hamhuis' NTC.

Perhaps there's some appeal to the Canucks pulling something similar to the Coyotes-Vermette with Hamhuis.

He could only be away for 2-3 months, then return to his normal summer home and re-sign with the Canucks on July 1st. Hopefully, signing the contract with a new blingy impediment on the hand of his choice. Hell, whether you love Hamhuis or not - even as I will gladly admit I do - this seems like a best-case scenario for everyone involved.

The Canucks general manager, Jim Benning, has said multiple times recently that Canucks management will wait and see where the Canucks are closer to the deadline and make a decision from there.

It's probably not the route I take in his shoes, but I can understand their reasoning as the Canucks were only a handful of points from a playoff spot and had a fairly easy slate of competition level leading up to the deadline. However after dropping games to Pittsburgh, Nashville, Columbus and Calgary, it has become clear to a growing majority of fans, that making the playoffs is a reach and if they did, it wouldn't last long.

If the Canucks can find a way to capitalize on the inflated value this short window has afforded them to extract on fleeting assets, they're likely better for it for years to come. There's the matter of the futures brought into the fold, along with the incoming cap space, laying the foundation for this team to return to the playoffs as early as next season.

There are only a few roadblocks in the way like an NTC, losing some games and making the decisions. Or maybe it never happens as the Canucks feel that retaining Hamhuis is a better course of action. But it appears that the Canucks are finally in getting into a position to make these moves. The Canucks will be better for it in the long run. 

78be9a3630e123311d359f0f3f566561
In search of sleep, sanity, & The Shire || I watch too much hockey || I like to make gifs || Contact: ryanbiech(at)hotmail(dot)com ||
Avatar
#51 Michelle
February 09 2016, 12:15PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Props
10
props

Holy Sh!t Buttuglie has a 7mil cap and Ottawa now has an overrated sloppy second.

Avatar
#52 Big D, little d
February 09 2016, 12:35PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Props
14
props

On the off chance that anyone is wading through the bot posts to find real comments, more to the point about Hamhuis. Philosophically I have some sympathy for the "trade him" argument. If you have players that aren't in your future plans you may as well get something for them rather than let them walk in the summer for nothing. And with the Canucks playoff hopes currently on life support there is no real opportunity cost in not having them for the rest of this season.

However. With a slighter longer term view, the Canucks need to improve their defense, probably as their top priority. If they go out on the free agent market this summer the best defenseman available will be ... Hamhuis. If you drop down a bit, one of the next best available defensemen will be ... Bartkowski.

So if the Canucks are looking to improve their defense without depleting their admittedly thin depth at other positions I think they may need to keep not only Hamhuis but also Bartkowski.

And yeah, I can't believe I'm writing that either. But that's where we're at.

Avatar
#53 RobG
February 09 2016, 12:51PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
9
props

If the talk about Hamius to Washington is true, I hope the Canucks can find a way to pry Bowey out of their hands. Washington wont give up their top prospect easily though.

Avatar
#54 Nick
February 09 2016, 01:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
10
props

@Big D, little d

"Do we get to mock Canucks management in that while the Jets sign Byfuglien at $7,600,000 AAV, the Canucks management sign Biega at $750,000? Is it any wonder the Canucks can't keep up?"

"...I think they may need to keep not only Hamhuis but also Bartkowski."

Wait, explain how you think that resigning Biega @ $750k is worthy of mockery and then you suggest that we keep Bartkowski @ $1.75M? Biega is a superior player to Bartkowski at less than half the cap hit. Bartkowski isn't the next best UFA defenceman after Hamhuis, there are plenty of other choices: http://www.spotrac.com/nhl/free-agents/ufa/defenseman/

Avatar
#55 east_van_joe
February 09 2016, 01:37PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
14
props

To those who are perplexed why Benning has not committed to trading expiring contracts for assets, please exhale for a moment and consider that this is a business where you can't simply put all of your cards on the table.

Imagine if Benning were to say, "oh, yeah, there's absolutely no way we're keeping Dan or Vrby beyond the trade deadline!" What does that do to Benning's negotiating position? That's a rhetorical question.

Avatar
#56 GeezMoney
February 09 2016, 01:43PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
3
props

Objectively horrible roster? Defence, yes.

Avatar
#57 Max Bentley
February 09 2016, 02:00PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
2
props

@markyaintdidleysquat

Another highly educated fan comes off the beer couch for a break.

Avatar
#58 Cid
February 09 2016, 02:00PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
4
props

Wow look at the unemployed trolls stroking their ego.

Avatar
#59 Cageyvet
February 09 2016, 05:28PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
1
props
Cid wrote:

Wow look at the unemployed trolls stroking their ego.

And stroking whatever else hits their cheesie-stained hands while they display their hillbilly educations from their basement suites.

You often hear from them on a Tuesday, they're finally a little sober but don't worry, Welfare Wednesday is up next and they'll disappear again as they rush out their doors, bus passes flying everywhere.

Avatar
#60 PB
February 09 2016, 05:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
3
props

Rather than just saying what Hamhuis would be theoretically worth (wished for) which are the teams outside of WAS who actually need a defensive d-man? Montreal? Bruins? Isles? Kings? I think late first and prospect or two seconds is probably realistic? But it does come back to the last point in the article -- would a player with deep roots here and an NTC take want to be uprooted? I suppose you could sell them on increasing their value prior to getting a contract in the offseason with a contender.

Avatar
#61 krutov
February 09 2016, 06:28PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Props
0
props

right now miller is better trade bait than hamhuis or vrbata. trading miller and signing a lesser goalie name in the offseason as markstrom's rival/backup is the best deadline move i can see.

vrbata is soft, doesn't kill penalties well, can't take a faceoff and he's having an off year. so basically he's a marginally better player than higgins with no useful playoff skills. he might fetch a third rounder if things get silly.

hamhuis is a 4th or 5th dman for most contenders. i don't think he'll fetch more than a second rounder or a prospect with question marks.

but miller is having a good year and has played in big games. he might make a big difference to a playoff run and benning is in a better negotiating position. for a team that does not trust their goaltending, a late first rounder or a decent prospect is possible.

Avatar
#62 Cal Buttercluck
February 10 2016, 08:18AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

I wouldn't be worried, Benning is just trying to play his hand right this time. Declaring you are in sell mode makes other teams more likely to lowball you. Now if you claim you want to keep your best dman an opposing GM is more likely to sweeten the deal, and if a bidding war ensues as well then we could be looking at one of those inflated returns that 90% of people will say is way too high for an aging rental player.

Avatar
#63 Cal Buttercluck
February 10 2016, 08:33AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
2
props

Just wanted to say, in regards to Vrbata's trade value, that he will probably fetch more than what a lot of you are saying. He is a proven goal scorer, with 31 goals as recently as last season. Now I agree hockey is a 'what have you done for me lately' game, especially with an aging player, however given the lack of goal scorin talent and the parity of the NHL this season, there will be many suitors looking to make a splash. Last year the return for Lack, whom other GM's did not consider (not had he proven himself to be) more than an above average backup was a 3rd and 7th round pick. Given that Vrbata is an established sniper who is having trouble finding chemistry and scoring touch on a mediocre team, a change of scenery may just be exactly what he needs to return to form. As with Hammer, a high demand and a shortage of talent available at the deadline should make for an inflated return.

Comments are closed for this article.