Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Edler For Eriksson. Would you do it?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
27 replies to this topic

#1 CanuckRow

CanuckRow

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,102 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 07

Posted 18 August 2012 - 02:05 AM

I'm usually pretty against proposals all together, but this is one possibility that is hard not to discuss. Sounds like a trade that would be one of the better "Hockey Trades" compared to what has happened in the passed.

Edited by CanuckRow, 18 August 2012 - 02:05 AM.

15yezck.jpg

 

 @Chel24Seven


#2 Canuck919191

Canuck919191

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 135 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 12

Posted 18 August 2012 - 02:16 AM

When it comes to general value this may be even but Edler is worth more to us at this point.

45~ point guy who can play both PK and PP logging 20+ mins a game, we can't just give someone like that up.

I love Eriksson, he's very underrated, but finding good D-men is a lot harder than finding good forwards.

#3 TACIC

TACIC

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,386 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 12

Posted 18 August 2012 - 02:23 AM

it's good cause edler could walk as UFA next year
AUmxe4h.gif
Credit to JimLahey for this awesome sig

TACIC

Yes i am a Leafs fan too, DEAL WITH IT!!

Go Canucks Go!

#4 palindrom

palindrom

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,072 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 18 August 2012 - 02:35 AM

You know guys , sometime i read your proposal and start dreaming about how Vancouver lineup would be so great after your proposal!
And then i often realize to my surprise, that i am touching myself and having a lot of pleasure.

Edler for Eriksson!! I can tell you it feel good man, think about it, touch youself, do you feel it too? WOW, it soooooo gooood.

Please dont stop! continue these proposal! Thank you man for the good time you procure me.

Edited by palindrom, 18 August 2012 - 02:39 AM.

Posted Image Was too much for me!

Instead im reading English grammar for advanced dummies





#5 NuckMan

NuckMan

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,428 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 03

Posted 18 August 2012 - 02:40 AM

You know , sometime i read your proposal and start dreaming about how Vancouver lineup would be so great after your proposal!
And then i often realize to my surprise, that i am touching myself and having a lot of pleasure.

Edler for Eriksson!! I can tell you it feel good man, think about it, touch youself, do you feel it too? WOW, it soooooo gooood.

Please dont stop! continue these proposal! Thank you man for the good time you procure me.


Da f*** did I just read? :mellow:

#6 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,950 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 18 August 2012 - 02:40 AM

Don't need another Swedish finesse forward. Edler is an amazing defenseman.

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#7 Jai604

Jai604

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,039 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 10

Posted 18 August 2012 - 03:27 AM

I wouldn't do it, as much as I like Loui.

I would say that finding legit #2 defensemen are harder to find than finesse wingers, although Eriksseon is very good.

He's good for 70~ish points a season, with anywhere from 25-30 goals per season on average. He's the real deal, but I still don't think I'd make this trade.

RIP LB RR PD


#8 hockeyfan90

hockeyfan90

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,356 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 11

Posted 18 August 2012 - 03:42 AM

I'd do it. Eriksson with the Sedins would be a killer line. He can easily get 40 goals a season that way!

#9 Nathan MacKinnon

Nathan MacKinnon

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,242 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 10

Posted 18 August 2012 - 04:12 AM

I wouldn't do it
Honestly, our forwards are great, while Eriksson would be nice Edler is a big part of our defensive core. I love Edler and I think he should stay!

+1 this post!

Posted Image

Credit to Intoewsables :wub: :wub: :wub:

Formerly known as UMADBRO?

Luongo Supporter. Does not deserve any of this BS


#10 Hank to Dank

Hank to Dank

    K-Wing Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 12

Posted 18 August 2012 - 04:22 AM

Killing our D depth just for another scoring forward? I thought we had a logjam of scoring guys, and needed some third line grit.

Not comfortable with these D pairings:

Hamhuis-Bieksa
Ballard-Garrison
Tanev-???

Ballard, as much as I want to love him, has not played like a top 4, and to make Tanev the anchor of the third pairing is dangerous.

#11 Gooseberries

Gooseberries

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,467 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 10

Posted 18 August 2012 - 04:22 AM

When it comes to general value this may be even but Edler is worth more to us at this point.

45~ point guy who can play both PK and PP logging 20+ mins a game, we can't just give someone like that up.

I love Eriksson, he's very underrated, but finding good D-men is a lot harder than finding good forwards.

perfect response! how many defenceman were chosen in the top 10 at this years draft? 8. 80% of the top 10 were defenceman. teams realize that defense is the most important part of the game. and that other than a bonified number one goalie a number one defenceman is the most valuable position.

20u7nh3.jpg

Credit to Vintage Canuck

The Sig lord


#12 palindrom

palindrom

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,072 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 18 August 2012 - 04:37 AM

perfect response! how many defenceman were chosen in the top 10 at this years draft? 8. 80% of the top 10 were defenceman. teams realize that defense is the most important part of the game. and that other than a bonified number one goalie a number one defenceman is the most valuable position.


And how many Goalie was drafted in the top 10 in the past 6 years? NONE

If your logic hold, you should realize that nowdaways, Defensemen have more value than goalie. Value is all about supply and demand, not about importance in a team. If there was 200 Weber caliber defenseman available for cheap every year as UFA, do you think teams would still draft a lot of defensemen ?

Also, people should realize that his contract is part of a player value.

An Edler wanting to sign elsewhere as UFA next summer vs an Edler willing to spend his career in Vancouver on a cheap contract have greatly different value.

Since we can only make wild guess on Edler Future contract, everyone should jump on the opportunity to have Eriksson at 4 250 000$ guarantee for the next 4 years!

Edited by palindrom, 18 August 2012 - 04:44 AM.

Posted Image Was too much for me!

Instead im reading English grammar for advanced dummies





#13 KING ALBERTS

KING ALBERTS

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,311 posts
  • Joined: 01-May 10

Posted 18 August 2012 - 07:42 AM

Killing our D depth just for another scoring forward? I thought we had a logjam of scoring guys, and needed some third line grit.

Not comfortable with these D pairings:

Hamhuis-Bieksa
Ballard-Garrison
Tanev-???

Ballard, as much as I want to love him, has not played like a top 4, and to make Tanev the anchor of the third pairing is dangerous.


well, first off - nobody is comfortable with a pairing of our 2 most offensive d-men... the lines would look more like

hamhuis - garrison
bieksa - ballard
tanev - alberts

i gotta say, i think the exact opposite of you. i think we have too much depth on D to allow a guy like ballard to excel... i know becuase of our playoff history most of you will say 'you can never have too much depth'... but i beleive you can have too many quality defensemen. besides, we sure could have used a more balanced offence in our first round exit - injuries to our defence had nothing to do with that pathetic exit... besides - trade deadline, pick up a third string defenceman that could fill in a top 4 in case of injury.

not that im saying i want edler traded... i would probly see bieksa, ballard, or tanev traded before eddie.. but if he doesnt re-sign, im all for getting something for him by deadline day.
Posted ImagePosted Image

i fel off the banwagon and hit my hed on a rok


#14 CanucksFanMike

CanucksFanMike

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,632 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 11

Posted 18 August 2012 - 07:47 AM

The twins with Eriksson would be sick swedish line but i wouldn't do it because it would take an intergrel part out of our defence and if we had Eriksson with the twins then MG might have to let Burr walk next summer.
Posted Image
Credit to -Vintage Canuck-

#15 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,204 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 18 August 2012 - 11:08 AM

Not a bad deal.
See if we could work out a good contract with Edler first, if it seems like he may want a bit more than we want to give him, then I would be very open to making that trade.

Jagermeister.jpg


#16 hockeyfan90

hockeyfan90

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,356 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 11

Posted 18 August 2012 - 02:41 PM

lol at the people who say we have enough scoring. I suggest that you go back and look at our last 2 playoffs series if you think the Canucks have enough scoring haha

#17 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,797 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 19 August 2012 - 03:31 PM

lol at the people who say we have enough scoring. I suggest that you go back and look at our last 2 playoffs series if you think the Canucks have enough scoring haha

And lol at the people who think we'd be fine losing more defence and goaltending to get that scoring when we had trouble keeping the puck out of our own net as well.

You don't rob from Peter to pay Paul. It's one thing if we did something like moving Burrows and Jensen for Eriksson, but it's another to move Edler and not replace him with something similar or better. You can guarantee our D isn't the same without him.

This doesn't even touch on Eriksson's NTC and there's no guarantee he waives it.

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#18 ButterBean

ButterBean

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,228 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 09

Posted 19 August 2012 - 03:52 PM

I'd probably do Edler+Raymond for Eriksson+Fistric. Eriksson would make our 2nd line a legit threat.

Sedin - Sedin - Burrows
Eriksson - Kesler - Booth
Higgins - Lapierre - Hansen
Volpatti - Malhotra - Kassian

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Ballard - Garrison
Fistric - Tanev

Not bad.

Edited by ButterBean, 19 August 2012 - 03:53 PM.


#19 Azzy Mahmood

Azzy Mahmood

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,295 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 11

Posted 20 August 2012 - 01:32 AM

I would do it in a heartbeat. Win now. We need:

- top 6 scoring

we have:

- Garrison and Ballard to take up Edler's offensive contributions
- a collection of D-men, namely Alberts, Connauton and Sauve, who can step up
- there are some decent 3rd pair D still in free agency
- trading Luongo could also get us our defensive cover

It's a yes from me.

#20 GM

GM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 409 posts
  • Joined: 05-December 06

Posted 20 August 2012 - 02:35 AM

Since Dallas traded James Neal and Matt Niskanen for Alex Goligoski I'd feel slightly unsatisfied with an Eriksson return straight up for Edler.  

I'd do a Alex Edler for Loui Eriksson and Patrick Nemeth/Ludvig Bystrom.

Edited by GM, 20 August 2012 - 07:55 AM.


#21 Lonny_Bohonos_14

Lonny_Bohonos_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,023 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 09

Posted 20 August 2012 - 07:09 AM

I'd probably do Edler+Raymond for Eriksson+Fistric. Eriksson would make our 2nd line a legit threat.

Sedin - Sedin - Burrows
Eriksson - Kesler - Booth
Higgins - Lapierre - Hansen
Volpatti - Malhotra - Kassian

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Ballard - Garrison
Fistric - Tanev

Not bad.


This - or something similar. Any deal with Edler (not that I want him gone, or think he's going anywhere) would have to include a defenseman coming back our way.

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#22 zombieksa

zombieksa

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,268 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 11

Posted 20 August 2012 - 07:50 AM

Edler 2nd

For

Eriksson Rome
"All religion, my friend, is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry."
-Edgar Allen Poe

#23 Bang Bang Boogie

Bang Bang Boogie

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,158 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 06

Posted 20 August 2012 - 10:14 AM

Edler 2nd

For

Eriksson Rome


AV says yes
Posted Image

#24 bossram

bossram

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,943 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 10

Posted 20 August 2012 - 10:32 AM

I'd love to trade for Eriksson, but we simply can not afford to deal Edler. Period. We don't have the defensive group as of now to win a Stanley Cup and trading our most talented defenseman won't help.

We can't think of moving Edler unless we somehow run across some other top-four defensman.

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Ballard - Garrison
Alberts - Tanev

That blueline won't win anything.
What is the deal with Mike Gillis, it always seems like he's sweating...

#25 gwarrior

gwarrior

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,101 posts
  • Joined: 06-September 11

Posted 20 August 2012 - 11:09 AM

if edler is gonna walk as a UFA, id do it. thats the only way id do it.

#26 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,088 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 20 August 2012 - 01:26 PM

I'd do it in a heartbeat. Edler is expendable and UFA next summer, without a second line we are going no where.

Canuckslogo160x160.jpg


#27 etsen3

etsen3

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,732 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 10

Posted 20 August 2012 - 01:59 PM

No thanks, Loui Eriksson is a very good player no doubt, and I think the value of both players is pretty equal. But I'm not willing to weaken our defense that much. Unless Ballard regains his old form (no guarantee), our defense suddenly looks a little thin. Look at the lineup posted above. With no stud defenseman to eat up huge minutes, we can't afford to lose much Top-4 depth.

#28 Mack Attack

Mack Attack

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 471 posts
  • Joined: 12-May 10

Posted 20 August 2012 - 02:18 PM

I'd do it in a heartbeat. Edler is expendable and UFA next summer, without a second line we are going no where.


wtf are you smoking




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.