Canucks Army Roundtable: MMMBop


It seems like the topic of the Vegas Golden Knights expansion draft continues to be a hot one across the NHL, as teams prepare their rosters and adjust for who can be stolen from them come June. The Canucks forward situation is dicey, as they basically have to decide between Baertschi, Granlund and Hansen, which of the three to allow to be claimed. Hansen seems to be the logical pick, as he is older and doesn’t fall into the long-term plan with the team as much as Baertschi and Granlund do. With that in mind, the Canucks could deal Hansen to ensure they get at least something for him instead of losing him for nothing to Vegas. I asked our writers what they would do with him.


What would you do with Jannik Hansen as we approach an expansion draft scenario?

Jackson McDonald

The players we have left with no-trade clauses are some of our best players and are important to the development of our best players. Alex Edler has helped our young defensemen break into the league. Alex Burrows has helped Bo Horvat and Sven Baertschi get to the next step of their games. The players are experienced players and help drive us winning. We’ve moved some no-trade contracts the last few years, but the players we have left are important veteran players who bring our team experience and leadership. We’re going to keep them.

J.D. Burke

The Canucks should’ve dealt Jannik Hansen, at the latest, at last year’s draft. See, one of the most valuable parts of Hansen is his contract. There aren’t many players in the league that can go from fourth to first lines and back playing for $2.5-million. That’s incredibly accommodating, especially for teams in a cap crunch as many will likely be with a stagnant cap. All this is to say that the Canucks have to deal Hansen at this year’s deadline, lest they lose him in the expansion draft for nothing. Better late than never.

Jeremy Davis

It’s imperative that the Canucks get something of value for Hansen before the expansion draft rolls in, where he’s a prime candidate to get snagged – there’s no doubt that the Canucks should be protecting Sven Baertschi and Markus Granlund.

I was vocally supportive of the Canucks trading Hansen at last year’s trade deadline, when he was having a career year, and again at the draft, when his value had never been higher. Instead, the Canucks chose to hold on to him, and as luck would have it, injuries have obscured his value.

Still, the Canucks must use this opportunity to take what they can get for Hansen. While he isn’t worth the same as he was a year ago, a second or third round pick and perhaps a prospect shouldn’t be too high an asking price for a player of Hansen’s ability and reputation, as well as other desirable qualities such as work ethic and veteran leadership.

Sillig Ekim

The expansion draft wasn’t something you could plan for, so it is best to let all of your assets to depreciate to zero to ensure that you are competing for a playoff spot. That’s how you get experience, is playing meaningful hockey in March.

Or, and hear me out. You actually try to extract value from players, and move them when you can to ensure that you don’t lose someone like Baertschi or Granlund for nothing. Or have to give up a pick/prospect to get Vegas to take someone else. With that being said, good thing they accumulated picks over the last few years……. oh?

Vanessa Jang

Trade trade trade. If we had the opportunity to keep him without losing Baertschi/Granlund, I would 100% do that. Since we can’t, our only option is to trade him. We’re in no position to lose yet another player, let alone Jannik Hansen, for no return whatsoever. This isn’t a situation where certain offers won’t be good enough. If he’s exposed in the expansion draft and Vegas claims him (which is likely), we get absolutely nothing. Even if a team is low-balling, it’s better than zero return. I wouldn’t risk having him claimed just because we didn’t want to except, hypothetically, a 3rd rounder from a team.


Jannik Hansen needs to be in a position to succeed whether it be with the canucks or elsewhere by the deadline. Put him with Horvat and Baertschi and find out what speed can do. He visibly works like a dog so he would fit great and putting him anywhere else would be a waste.

Ryan Biech

Stay tuned for a post about this next week.

Taylor Perry

Feels like I’m not adding anything new to the conversation, but I’ve been supportive of trading the Great Dane for some time now. He’s _exactly_ the type of addition that teams looking to load up for a Cup run would try to acquire. He’s versatile, fast, and can make a positive impact in virtually every situation. Somewhere – I’m thinking in the East – there is a team looking at Jannik Hansen thinking he could be their Chris Higgins/Maxim Lapierre (ca. 2011), a player that gives them extra flexibility, depth, and protection against injury. For the Canucks, it would be wise to try and start a bidding war for his services. They would receive assets in return and have one less headache prior to the expansion draft.

Matthew Henderson

I was also of the idea that you should have traded Hansen when he was at his top value last year. Unfortunately, he’s lost value. But he’s been to the playoffs multiple times, and been in a cup final, his experience could prove valuable to a few teams that might be willing to overpay come trade deadline time.

  • DJ_44

    I would suggest there are a lot more moving parts then just “trade Hansen”. Vegas gets someone. If it is between Hansen and Sbisa (a very possible scenario); from Vegas’ point of view, I would think Sbisa is more attractive.

    I guess my point is that whomever the Canucks lose will have a value, which is exactly why you do not accept a low-ball offer at the deadline.

    Hell, I might even consider exposing Edler (assuming it is an NTC and not an NMC). $5M for two more years to keep Vegas above the Cap floor, an good stable of d-men to step in next year.

  • Vanoxy

    I would expose Sutter rather than Hansen, If it comes down to that.

    Sutter’s cap hit is prohibitive, considering his production, making Sbisa a more attractive pick up for Vegas.

    If he was picked, the Canucks still have Horvat, Henrik, Granlund and Gaunce down the middle, plus likely another C from this year’s draft.

    With Horvat’s new contract getting more expensive by the day, and Sutter’s role being deminished just as fast, I see him as a luxury rather than the foundation piece that he’s been hyped up to be.

    • I view Sutter as a guy that is not necessarily “core” but really valuable. He has middle-6 scoring ability, (north-side + wrist shot), is +50% in the face-off circle, can play centre or wing, can play up and down the line-up, and can log +20 minutes if necessary. That versatility is key…like…gasp, Jannik Hansen.

      If Benning can’t get the equivalent of a 1st round pick for Hansen at the deadline, I’d keep and protect him. I’d risk losing Granlund through the expansion draft. There’s still a good chance that Vegas will take Sbisa anyways.

      JD: “There aren’t many players in the league that can go from fourth to first lines and back playing for $2.5-million.” If we have a great player that’s been with the organization since Day 1 and is a great role model, why get rid of him?

      • JuiceBox

        JD: “There aren’t many players in the league that can go from fourth to first lines and back playing for $2.5-million.” If we have a great player that’s been with the organization since Day 1 and is a great role model, why get rid of him?”

        That is exactly what makes Hansen so valuable. Hansen’s versatility and low cap hit make him an attractive addition on a contending team. He is the definition of “swiss army knife” at a bargain price.

        JD’s comment strikes me as strange considering he is firmly on team “tear down.” That kind of “why not keep him” thinking is one of the reasons why the Canucks are in this situation in the first place.

        “If Benning can’t get the equivalent of a 1st round pick for Hansen at the deadline, I’d keep and protect him.”

        This is the exact line of thinking JB had with Hamius at last years TDL. Why does it have to be all or nothing?

        I understand the sentiment in keeping him, but its that kind of sentiment that keeps this team’s rebuild stuck in slow motion. Players are stocks, you have to sell high. Hansen’s value to a team willing to mortgage some future will never be higher than it is right now. It’s tough choice, but it has to be done for the long-term health of the franchise. Short term pain, long term gain.

        • DJ_44

          “This is the exact line of thinking JB had with Hamius at last years TDL. Why does it have to be all or nothing?”

          What does this even mean?

          How was this JB’s thinking last year…..two trade team…. Chicago went with forwards…..Dallas choose Russell….. then… apparently Chicago came with a last minute lowball offer that had Bickell’s contract wrapped up in it……just say yes for a mid- round pick?

          • JuiceBox

            If it comes down to either watching a player walk away for nothing or getting even just a 2nd round pick in return, you take the pick because getting even a 2nd round pick is better than getting nothing at all. For a team that is supposedly rebuilding those 2nd round picks have value.

          • JuiceBox

            Getting something is better than getting nothing. If the player is going to walk in FA and there is no value in keeping him ie A playoff push then the value line is whatever you can get for him.

            Regarding the expansion draft. Every team is going to lose something of value, everybody is in the same boat. Prudent management would be to ensure you lose the least valuable asset possible – a 4th line plug or a bad contract and in some cases that’s the same player.

          • Bud Poile

            Every team is in the same boat so getting ‘whatever you can get for Hansen’ is not a viable nor realistic strategy.

            Running a franchise by dumping a career Canuck for nothing in fear of losing him for nothing is not the strategy you want management to take.

            Please explain how the Canucks are only offering plugs and Vegas are taking our fourth line plug.

          • JuiceBox

            It’s not about dumping a career Canuck it’s about not losing quality players for nothing. If it’s not Hansen then it’s granlund or baertschi. All three of those players have value on the trade market. Pick one, move one.

            If the Canucks move one of three said players then who is left to expose up front Dorsett. 4th line plug with bad contract. Doesn’t mean Vegas takes him but Dorsett is the least valuable piece the Canucks can lose. Then Vegas likely takes Sbisa an overpaid 3rd pairing dman and a bad contract comes off the books Or they take Backman which is of no consequence to the organization.

          • Bud Poile

            Everybody’s in the same boat trying to move their Hansen ,Baertschi and Granlund,Sbisa or Markstrom to a true contender.

            Very few true contenders with dozens of other teams attempting to rescue value.

            Vegas aren’t taking Dorsett and his contract over a young Baertschi or Granlund. Come on.

            Conversely,Sbisa is a target because he is playing top-four minutes respectably with a very decent contract. What are you talking about?

            Vegas aren’t taking Bachman in a million drafts so if the Canucks -once again-pad Markstrom’s stats over the remaining schedule and offer him up to Vegas that might work out.

          • Freud

            Wholly f#ck, Bud’s senile. That’s got to be the only explanation.

            He completed misunderstood what Juicebox was getting at and then essentially makes the points Juicebox did while attempting to discredit him.

            wow…. just wow.

          • Bud Poile

            Yeah,Vegas will take Bachman or Dorsett and the Canucks get to dump their worst contract.

            Drugs must be pretty cheap wherever you’re stealing that internet connection.

          • JuiceBox

            If the Canucks trade one of Hansen, Baertschi, or Granlund they protect the two leaving Guance, Dorsett, and Chaput exposed at forward.

            Just because Sbisa is playing top 4 minutes does not mean he is a top 4 defenseman, and no that contract is not reasonable. In fact since he is playing better now one could make the case to trade him too, recoup even a mid to low draft pick, leaving only Biega being exposed.

            And you are right, no way they take Backman but the Canucks have to expose a goalie.

            If Canucks manage this right they can stock up on some draft picks and leave just Guance, Dorsett, Chaput, Biega, and Backman exposed.

          • Bud Poile

            “If the Canucks trade one of Hansen, Baertschi, or Granlund they protect the two leaving Guance, Dorsett, and Chaput exposed at forward.” JB

            I understand,Juicebox.It’s just that 26 other teams are trying to trade their Hansen’s ,Baertschi’s and Granlund’s for exactly the same reasons.Would Vegas take a Gaunce or Dorsett if they were given a Sbisa or Markstrom?The Canucks have to trade Sbisa and Hansen or hope that Vegas takes Markstrom if they can not.

          • DJ_44

            There are additional options that can be looked at. Sbisa contract is right about where it should be at market value. Last year, sure, he had a bad year, but this year he is well worth the $3.5M.

            If they move one of Hansen, Granlund or Baertschi, then I would think Vegas would look at Gaunce over Dorsett if they wanted forwards (I guess that is one reason to be thankful for slim pickings up front).

            Since Edler has a NTC, and not a NMC (please correct me if I am wrong — info from CapFriendly) and is due for $5M next year and the following year…..I would consider leaving him unprotected (because no one will take him in a trade with that contract, and he probably doesn’t want to go).

            Finally, I mentioned it before, and granted they are not overly perceptive, but The Hockey News, in their mock expansion draft, had Andrey Pedan being pick …swear to God……google it.

          • Bud Poile

            The educated Canucks fan speaks of the Gillis lost years:

            #2 Dirk22
            October 15 2016, 02:38PM

            Name a team in the NHL that is in worse shape than the Canucks as far as current roster or what they have in the cupboard coming up. I can’t think of any.

          • Dirk22

            Right…I guess I haven’t earned that 47 years (according to your recent bio of being a Canucks fan) of education which has taught you that Sbisa is on a ‘decent contract.’ Teams must be lining up!

          • Bud Poile

            Dirk,I’m 57 so memory retention or math has already failed you.

            Benning was a very decent NHL d-man and his paying Luca $3.6m is fair value for any top-4 NHL d man today.

          • Dirk22

            It’s the year 2017. Canucks joined the league in 1970. Unless you spent the ’60’s cheering for an imaginary team that’s 47 years of being a fan.

            i don’t even know where to start with the Sbisa thing. Your start talking about Benning as a player really sets the tone for the level of intellect we’re dealing with.

          • Bud Poile

            Benning was a top-4 NHL d-man that has spent the last 30 years evaluating,developing and signing talent.

            Surely Benning understands what the talent levels and salary projections are for top-4 NHL d-men.

            He has scouted them,developed them and signed
            them professionally for nearly three decades.

            As he was one,himself,he intrinsically understands the position and realistically estimates their talent ceilings and salary projections into the near future,at the very least.

            Thanks for sharing your hockey intellect with us,Dirk.

        • Right but if you trade Hansen, the RW depth chart is Eriksson and then…Skille? This assumes Burrow isn’t resigned. If you keep Hansen, you have two proven Top 6 *scoring* RW. Merely having Megna on the Sedins wing doesn’t make him Top 6 material.

          So now you need to replace a guy who can score 20 goals, work with the Sedins, kill penalties and do it all for $2.5M. You gonna find that in free agency? Not likely. Definitely not by trade since that’s exactly what you’re giving up. Virtanen and Boeser are not a lock for next year, they may not be on the roster for educational or developmental reasons. Rodin is a risk because of the knee. Grenier will never equal Hansen.

          The way how I see it, trading Hansen is a vote for team tank because I can’t see a viable replacement in the prospect pipeline. I say at least a 1st round pick because that makes it worth the pain or can be flipped for an NHL ready prospect. I suggested a trade for Ivan Barbashev before, him or an equivalent.

          • Bud Poile

            “Virtanen and Boeser are not a lock for next year…”

            Boeser will be 21 next February and Jake is 21 years old this coming August.

            They will both be mature enough and therefore both should be battling for or on the roster next year.

          • JuiceBox

            All incredibly valid points, trading Hansen leaves a hole no doubt but if the Canucks do not start moving players like Hansen and capitalizing in these types of situations they will never acquire enough picks and prospects to fill the ranks from below and they stay stuck in cycle they have always been in. Short term pain, long term gain.

          • In that case, I would think that the trades would come from the position of surplus: defence. Between Edler, Tanev, Stecher, Hutton, Tryamkin and Gudbranson, two guys could be traded to fill holes in the forward group. I’d keep Hansen and try to find a guy who can slot in a Top 6 centre role in a few years. Heck, maybe we don’t even need that if Gaudette keeps improving. Keeping Hansen would bridge the gap until either Boeser or Virtanen is ready. Between Baertschi, Virtanen and Boeser, I think we’d be ok to keep Hansen and (sadly) lose him to free agency.

      • Vanoxy

        I like Sutter, and rank him and Hansen very closely as far as their value.

        I guess it just comes down to the fact that Sutter carries an extra 2mil + in cap hit.

        I think if Vegas had Sbisa or Hansen to choose from, they take Hansen, hands down.

        If it’s Sbisa or Sutter, the odds are better that they take Sbisa and leave our forward ranks intact.

    • crofton

      I think the contract thing works against being a more attractive pick. IE Vegas will need to get off the cap floor, enter Sutter and whomever else other teams put out there with the same idea.

  • JuiceBox

    Hansen is a very well rounded player, plays a simple game with speed, defensively reliable, can play with just about anybody in under any system. He isn’t a game breaker by any means but he would be a great addition to a bubble team that needs more consistency out of their middle 6.

    The biggest knock against this team – basically since it’s inception – is their unwillingness to trade complimentary players while they are at their peak value. With an eye 3 to 4 years down the road, Hansen should not be considered part of their core and as valuable as Hansen is to this team right now, he is at his peak trade value and regardless of the upcoming expansion draft, this is a great opportunity for the Canucks to recoup any combination of young player and/or pick(s).

  • crofton

    Sutter to me seems a lot more valuable than generally given credit for here. 1 face offs….compare Vancouver this year and last, which was spent largely without him. 2 PK guy 3 potential 20-25 goal scorer. The biggest issue people here seem to have with him is the same as they had with Sbisa…the size of his contract, NOT necessarily that he is under contract. I’m for trying to maximize Hansen’s trade value and deal him. He’s 31 now, and both Granlund and Baertschi are showing too much, with both being younger

    • Dirty30

      Don’t forget the impact that Manny has had on ALL the Centres — it’s not as much a Sutter effect as you might imagine.

      My vote for trading Hansen is that this team does need to look to the future and this is one valuable asset to manage toward that future success.

      In addition to the “cupboard is bare” hysteria that permeates some posts, the reality of having three players go from contributing to zombies all at once was devastating– Vrbata, Higgins and Prust all just stopped making any sort of contribution. Injuries to Hamius (Prust, Sutter, Sbisa, etc) all impacted this team as well.

      Injuries haven’t helped Hansen or his value but what value is there needs to be used now to help with the future. Most commentators who voted about the Canucks future success seemed to think 3-5 years to get there — that means making difficult decisions now for the future.

      Can’t change the past, but one had better learn from it.

  • Chris the Curmudgeon

    Expose Sutter instead. His oversized contract is protection enough. He isn’t without value, but Vegas probably won’t want to pay a guy that much for what he brings, and if we lose him in the draft, we get that cap space back.