Player Discussion Filip Hronek - Pt. 2

[TruKnyte]

Hronek for Crouse.

Don’t think they’d make that trade now

 

[David71]

he got rocked by kane tonight that led to that gwg by bouchard.

 

[DFAC]

really not sure what a lot of you are seeing - hronek continues to be the complementary piece on one of the top three pairings in the entire league. yes, the big driver of that is his partner who is going to win the norris and has had stretches where he should be up for the hart. but does anyone really think hughes would be in that position with luke schenn or tyler myers as his partner? playing that role alone is worth about $5m, and given the upside he showed at the start of the year, i'd be pretty damn happy if we could settle mid to long term in the mid-6's to low 7's.

if we can somehow get rasmus andersson or artem zub in a trade, or dylan demelo, matt roy, or brandon montour in free agency, sure, move hronek to make it happen, either from an asset perspective or from a cap allocation perspective. i don't think any of those options are going to be canucks by september though.

and again, 34 year old chris tanev is closer in value to last year's schenn than he is to 25 year old hronek.

34 year old Chris Tanev has been shutting down Eichel and MacKinnon just FYI

 

[Icebreakers]

Just trade him for a first or two seconds. Take the money and sign someone who can play defence.

 

[kanucks25]

His injury (assuming hand-related) seems to be more real than Petey's, or at least more obvious when watching him.

His passing and shooting is totally gimped, and I imagine it's messing with his psyche as well.

He's actually been okay defensively overall but in the regular season he was an important part of the 5-man o-zone cycle game but in the playoffs he keeps f***ing up the plays.

Management is probably pretty happy that he turned down their "fair" offer.

 

[VanJack]

I'm beginning to wonder how long Hronek's career will last in Vancouver. He's an RFA this off-season.....but a UFA the year after that. It's basically the same situation Petey was in this year.

If Hronek is only willing to commit for a year and then test the UFA market, then Allvin might have no choice but to deal him sometime during the season next year.

 

[Hodgy]

The puck is dying on his stick in the offensive zone. Someone on here (@bossram?) about how Hronek enabled Hughes to be so good offensively……and this really hasn’t been true in the playoffs.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

His injury (assuming hand-related) seems to be more real than Petey's, or at least more obvious when watching him.

His passing and shooting is totally gimped, and I imagine it's messing with his psyche as well.

He's actually been okay defensively overall but in the regular season he was an important part of the 5-man o-zone cycle game but in the playoffs he keeps f***ing up the plays.

Management is probably pretty happy that he turned down their "fair" offer.

I would agree if this wasnt the scoutig report on him befote he got here.

edit. Not the ozone problems! But the rest.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

I'm beginning to wonder how long Hronek's career will last in Vancouver. He's an RFA this off-season.....but a UFA the year after that. It's basically the same situation Petey was in this year.

If Hronek is only willing to commit for a year and then test the UFA market, then Allvin might have no choice but to deal him sometime during the season next year.

I wouldn't be surprised if we force him to arbitration and move on from there. Especially if Tanev comes back. It's not ideal since Hronek is only 26 but after the way he's performed in the last 4-5 months, he either takes a massive cut from his initial ask or he's not worth keeping.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Really wish we had seen him play on his own pairing (perhaps with Soucy) for a stretch during the season for an extra bit of data. Very frustrating player to watch at the moment.

 

[Jerry the great]

I wouldn't be surprised if we force him to arbitration and move on from there. Especially if Tanev comes back. It's not ideal since Hronek is only 26 but after the way he's performed in the last 4-5 months, he either takes a massive cut from his initial ask or he's not worth keeping.

If he's truly looking for $7MM++ on a max term deal, I think they'll try hard to replace him in the UFA market this summer (or via trade) and if successful, i wouldn't be at all surprised to see him moved. You never know how much of the smoke is just Walsh and the collection of talking heads he whispers nonsense to....but either way, he's not a guy we should be giving a huge AAV retirement contract to IMO. First half of the season, I was pretty on board the hype train, but this guy is just too small and lacks the durability required to play 24 minutes per night over 82 games and have much left in the tank come playoff time.

 

[bossram]

The puck is dying on his stick in the offensive zone. Someone on here (@bossram?) about how Hronek enabled Hughes to be so good offensively……and this really hasn’t been true in the playoffs.

This is a bizarre call-out. I've been largely more negative about Hronek than anyone here, even going back to when he was getting a ton of points. In my viewing, the worrying defensive play was always there. I wasn't even really a fan of the trade itself.

He's also clearly playing injured and it's been speculated he has for some time. It's obvious because it's been weeks-months since we've seen him take an actually hard slapshot. I suspect a shoulder or core injury. Would also explain why he can't take any hits right now either.

He is a good player and an obvious top-four defenseman. Like most irrational fans, the general consensus on him has overcorrected in the opposite direction. We've seen that at his best, he is a great fit with Hughes.

But nice try with the lame dunk attempt. Good job.

 

[credulous]

This is a bizarre call-out. I've been largely more negative about Hronek than anyone here, even going back to when he was getting a ton of points. In my viewing, the worrying defensive play was always there. I wasn't even really a fan of the trade itself.

hey now, i'm still here

 

[PuckMunchkin]

This is a bizarre call-out. I've been largely more negative about Hronek than anyone here, even going back to when he was getting a ton of points. In my viewing, the worrying defensive play was always there. I wasn't even really a fan of the trade itself.

He's also clearly playing injured and it's been speculated he has for some time. It's obvious because it's been weeks-months since we've seen him take an actually hard slapshot. I suspect a shoulder or core injury. Would also explain why he can't take any hits right now either.

He is a good player and an obvious top-four defenseman. Like most irrational fans, the general consensus on him has overcorrected in the opposite direction. We've seen that at his best, he is a great fit with Hughes.

But nice try with the lame dunk attempt. Good job.

If its the same shoulder again, Yzerman really might have done a nasty move on us.

 

[JT Milker]

hey now, i'm still here

I wish he was playing like Myers right now.

 

[bossram]

If its the same shoulder again, Yzerman really might have done a nasty move on us.

He knew something was up to pull the chute suddenly.

 

[vancityluongo]

34 year old Chris Tanev has been shutting down Eichel and MacKinnon just FYI

nowhere did I say tanev is not a very, very good defenseman - but he's a stop gap, short-term solution, just as schenn was last season. quinn hughes is 24 and should be a canuck for upwards of the next 15 years. are we going to be switching his d partner every year or two for the next decade through his entire prime?

the only way tanev makes sense as a hronek replacement is if you're 100% dead certain that in two years willander will be a top pairing defenseman, with or without hughes, and you just need to bridge the gap.

and fyi, the hughes-hronek pairing numbers wise has been as good as anyone can be against mcdrai.

 

[Hodgy]

This is a bizarre call-out. I've been largely more negative about Hronek than anyone here, even going back to when he was getting a ton of points. In my viewing, the worrying defensive play was always there. I wasn't even really a fan of the trade itself.

He's also clearly playing injured and it's been speculated he has for some time. It's obvious because it's been weeks-months since we've seen him take an actually hard slapshot. I suspect a shoulder or core injury. Would also explain why he can't take any hits right now either.

He is a good player and an obvious top-four defenseman. Like most irrational fans, the general consensus on him has overcorrected in the opposite direction. We've seen that at his best, he is a great fit with Hughes.

But nice try with the lame dunk attempt. Good job.

I clearly included a question mark after your name which clearly was intended to acknowledge that I didn’t know whether you in fact held those beliefs at one point. So, it’s quite unfair (and frankly, rude) to characterize my post as some sort of a dunk attempt or bizarre call out when I admittedly didn’t even know you were the right poster to be engaging. You don’t need to be so defensive and rude, you could just have replied that it wasn’t you.

 

[clay]

If there's a way to sign Tanev as a stop gap until Willander is ready while being able to keep Lindholm, Joshua, Zadorov, and Myers on reasonable deals, it's definitely good asset management to trade Hronek in the offseason.

 

[canuckslover10]

At this point anything over 6.5 million is an overpay.

 

[DFAC]

 

[tantalum]

I mean I get it but there are dozens upon dozens of these charts that he can be cooked on instead.

 

[bossram]

I clearly included a question mark after your name which clearly was intended to acknowledge that I didn’t know whether you in fact held those beliefs at one point. So, it’s quite unfair (and frankly, rude) to characterize my post as some sort of a dunk attempt or bizarre call out when I admittedly didn’t even know you were the right poster to be engaging. You don’t need to be so defensive and rude, you could just have replied that it wasn’t you.

Well, it was clearly a dunk attempt. Whether it was me or someone else, it was obvious you were trying to point out they were "wrong". My reaction was perfectly justified. Don't backtrack. Own it. Get real dude. If you are rude, people will be rude to you.

And I still responded with a plethora of substantive points. If you want to engage with those, you can. But it was obvious tagging me was a dunk attempt. Don't deny it man. If you actually just wanted to question Hronek's efficacy, you could have simply posted about it and not tagged anyone. Own your own behaviour.

 

[Hodgy]

Well, it was clearly a dunk attempt. Whether it was me or someone else, it was obvious you were trying to point out they were "wrong". My reaction was perfectly justified. Don't backtrack. Own it. Get real dude. If you are rude, people will be rude to you.

You are being way too defensive. It wasn't a "dunk attempt". I was debating with someone about Hronek's value to the team, and that poster was arguing that he did provide some value since he enabled Hughes' offensive play even though that poster admitted that Hronek wasn't a play driver. My point was that Hronek hasn't done a good job enabling Hughes in these playoffs as the play keeps on dying on his stick within the offensive zone. Earlier in the season I think he did do a good job of this.

And how am I being rude? Pointed out that someone else is behaving rudely isn't being rude.

And I still responded with a plethora of substantive points. If you want to engage with those, you can. But it was obvious tagging me was a dunk attempt. Don't deny it man. If you actually just wanted to question Hronek's efficacy, you could have simply posted about it and not tagged anyone. Own your own behaviour.

I have no idea what you are going on about. If I really wanted to try to "dunk on you" then I would re-review the post history and figure out who I was debating with initially. But I don't care that much and was more wanting to debate the merits of whether Hughes' offensive play was enabled by Hronek which was initially at issue. I tagged you because I thought you were the person I was initially debating with (but even then I inserted a question mark to make it clear that I couldn't recall if that was actually you).

If I wanted to try to dunk on you then I would just review your post history and find something you were obviously wrong about (as everyone is, from time to time), but I don't give a shit. Although I do find your rude defensiveness to be quite off putting.

 

[bossram]

You are being way too defensive. It wasn't a "dunk attempt". I was debating with someone about Hronek's value to the team, and that poster was arguing that he did provide some value since he enabled Hughes' offensive play even though that poster admitted that Hronek wasn't a play driver. My point was that Hronek hasn't done a good job enabling Hughes in these playoffs as the play keeps on dying on his stick within the offensive zone. Earlier in the season I think he did do a good job of this.

And how am I being rude? Pointed out that someone else is behaving rudely isn't being rude.



I have no idea what you are going on about. If I really wanted to try to "dunk on you" then I would re-review the post history and figure out who I was debating with initially. But I don't care that much and was more wanting to debate the merits of whether Hughes' offensive play was enabled by Hronek which was initially at issue. I tagged you because I thought you were the person I was initially debating with (but even then I inserted a question mark to make it clear that I couldn't recall if that was actually you).

If I wanted to try to dunk on you then I would just review your post history and find something you were obviously wrong about (as everyone is, from time to time), but I don't give a shit. Although I do find your rude defensiveness to be quite off putting.

It was a dunk attempt. Admit it and move on. If you were discussing with another poster about it, why tag someone else? That makes no sense. The intention was to show that the person you tagged was wrong. That's what it was. It's fine. Just say that's what it was and I will go about my day.