Hamhuis could go to Wild?
This is my first fanpost/fanshot on HW so take it easy on me ;)
According to ESPN insider rumor central (I don't have the subscription so I can't read the whole article), the Wild may sign Dan Hamhuis as an unrestricted free agent. That's pretty interesting since we don't have any spots open on defense and have a bunch of d-men prospects in Houston. The only way I see the Wild signing Hamhuis (barring a trade), is if Hnidy is not resigned and Nate Prosser ends up starting the season in Houston.
Hamhuis had 5 goals and 19 assists for 24 points this season for Nashville. He has never scored more than 7 goals in a season and his career high in points is 38. He is pretty durable and can stay on the ice. In his career he has played an average of 80.5 games a season.
If the Wild do indeed sign Hamhuis as a FA, who do you think will be traded or let go? Would you want Hamhuis to be a member of the Minnesota Wild?
The opinions posted here are not those of Hockey Wilderness
21 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice find! I will ask around for someone who has access to the entire rumor.
My take is that the Wild are loaded at D, have plenty of prospects at the position, and it is time to look at forwards, not defensemen. Hopefully this is truly just a rumor.
Rule #17: You may not impersonate representatives of Hockey Wilderness and handout NHL themed wrist bands.
Initially, I thought he’d be an upgrade defensively, but for the amount of money he’d cost, I’m not sure he’d be much of an improvement.
Here’s where Hamhuis would have fit in if we plug in his stats to the Wild. I’ll figure without Johnsson:
Shots – 2nd (115)
TOI – 4th (21:15)
ES TOI – 2nd (18:09)
PK TOI – 3rd (2:39)
Hits – 2nd (148)
Blocked Shots – 4th (95)
Takeaways – 1st (48)
Giveaways – 2nd (51)
My gut feeling is he’d be an upgrade over Schultz, and if we could move that contract it wouldn’t be bad, but with so many promising young D-men (especially with size) in the system, I’d rather bring them along instead.
Here is the whole story:
Courtesy of James O’Brien @cyclelikesedins – make sure you follow him on Twitter and read his work at Pro Hockey Talk, NBC’s hockey blog.
Dan Hamhuis likes Nashville and says it’s possible he could be back. And, in the end, it’s about money because it’s unlikely the Preds will pay $4 million annually — his estimated market value — to lock him up.
That said, the Edmonton Journal’s Jim Matheson writes, “Hamhuis is exactly what the Minnesota Wild need — a solid shutdown guy.” However, Wild GM Chuck Fletcher has said he’d be looking for internal improvements, as well as some on the trade market. But he hinted he wouldn’t spend too big on the free agent market.
Hamhuis previously told the newspaper, “There are options out there,” which might indicate that he wants to test the market.
But Hamhuis could stay put. Preds GM David Poile told the Tennessean that there’s a reasonable chance he can re-sign Hamhuis, which is a little surprising.
Rule #17: You may not impersonate representatives of Hockey Wilderness and handout NHL themed wrist bands.
Schultz is ;locked in at 3.5 mil per. Hamhuis is at 2 already, and will get a significant pay raise if he is such a high grade shut down guy, as the article claims. My bet is he signs for roughly what Schultz makes, so the question is… is he better than Schultz?
Rule #17: You may not impersonate representatives of Hockey Wilderness and handout NHL themed wrist bands.
I’m going to answer “yes” to your direct question. I like Schultz for the most part, but he looked barely average at times this year.
However, the discussion is probably moot because of all the other current contract issues and D men in the system as have been commented on previous.
I would pose a counter question: could we anything for Schultz at the draft? If not Schultz, anyone else? If an option like Hamhuis is out there (and you think you can lock him up July 1), I think you’d have to consider it.
Let's Go Twins!
Minnesota Wild Off-season: In Fletch We Trust.
When has Schultz NOT been average?
He’s never been spectacular, but he’s still a solid rock in our D. That said, he may be able to fetch something at the draft, but probably not much. I wouldn’t want to part ways with him though, he’s been a good leader for this team.
twitter: BubbleWild48
More thoughts...
Looking at the contracts…
Burns is in through 2012, Schultz is in until 2014, Zidlicky just got a long term deal, Barker is through 2012, as is Stoner. That is five guys signed for at least two more seasons. Hamhuis is not going to want a one year deal, and he is not going to come cheap. Bringing in another long term contract on the blue line makes it nearly impossible to get the kids into the line up, barring injury.
Sorry to put so much thought into such an obvious non-starter, but it is what it is. A rumor. Still, thank you for finding it, and for sharing it, Tara.
Rule #17: You may not impersonate representatives of Hockey Wilderness and handout NHL themed wrist bands.
Your welcome!
I usually look at ESPN rumor central daily just to see what they say. I thought it was interesting so I figured I would share with my fellow Wild fans!
Great post Tara! :)
I think signing Hamhuis would mean either bye-bye Burns or no Stoner/Prosser/Cuma/Scandella this year, which is a no-no for me. Besides, we’ve gotta concentrate on forwards…
At first, I thought this was the first in our ‘’conspiracy mill’’! :D haha
twitter: BubbleWild48
Thanks JS!
I agree, I like Burns a lot and think he’s a good player. I don’t want him going anywhere anytime soon. I am excited to see all the guys you listed play a significant amount of games for the Wild.
I would love Hamhuis as a Wild but....
We already have 6 D-men under contract
Barker
Zidlicky
Schultz
Burns
Zanon
Stoner
5 of them are capable of playing top 4 minutes. So if we got Hamhuis, we would have 6 guys who could play top 4, meaning we would have two top 4-dmen playing bottom pair minutes, now THAT is a waste of money…

by 
















