Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

If at the trade deadline edler still hasnt re-signed, do you trade him?


  • Please log in to reply
111 replies to this topic

Poll: If at the trade deadline edler still hasnt re-signed, do you trade him? (190 member(s) have cast votes)

do u deal him if he hasnt signed on the dotted line???

  1. no deal, no way im risking letting him walk (69 votes [36.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 36.32%

  2. it all depends on the specific situation (85 votes [44.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 44.74%

  3. i would take my chances after the season regardless (27 votes [14.21%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.21%

  4. other (9 votes [4.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.74%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#91 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,007 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:56 AM

Edler better than Ballard? :picard: oh man .. some people...............do you see what I just did there............

It's all about opinions man and when Edler gets moved to his wrong side and played with a rookie come back and we'll discuss it.

By the way which of the two showed up in the playoffs?


Seems to me the year before Ballard was watching from the press box while a rookie was playing. Ballard was pretty good this past playoffs but it was only 5 games. Based on what I've seen over the past two years I'd take six Edlers over 6 Ballards without ever batting an eye. The only thing I think Ballard is truly better at is fighting. I think you've been blinded by his hip checks.
  • 0
Posted Image

#92 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:46 AM

I would rather have a shot at the cup than weaken that chance. Playoff teams lose UFA's every year. Hence high quality UFA's available July 1st. That's the risk you take for a chance to win the cup.


Interesting, coming from a guy who's signature is based on Canuck fans whining about trading Cody Hodgson for a project, prior to the playoffs.
  • 0

#93 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,007 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:02 AM

Interesting, coming from a guy who's signature is based on Canuck fans whining about trading Cody Hodgson for a project, prior to the playoffs.


You're comparing the effect of moving an all-star 40+ point d-man for prospects/picks to moving a rookie prospect for a rookie prospect? Really?

Cody was getting moved regardless. I didn't mind seeing Cody moved as bringing in Pahlsson turned the third line back into a checking line capable of playing shutdown. This in turn frees up the second line from shutdown duty to play a more offensive role. A formula that was extremely successful the previous season prior to Mahotra's freak eye injury. I didn't see it as weakening the team.

Let me know when you're finished crying about Cody.


Edit: Btw, my sig is based on the incessant whining here about CBC, Bettman, critical Canuck articles, and analyst opinions. The slightest thing, even when true, brings the crybabies out in droves. I added Cody to the existing sig after the trade was made.

Edited by Baggins, 10 October 2012 - 11:23 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#94 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:10 AM

Cody was getting moved regardless. I didn't mind seeing Cody moved as bringing in Pahlsson turned the third line back into a checking line capable of playing shutdown. This in turn frees up the second line from shutdown duty to play a more offensive role. A formula that was extremely successful the previous season prior to Mahotra's freak eye injury. I didn't see it as weakening the team.


Cody may have been getting moved, but it would not have been until the off-season, at the earliest. And support of the trade directly contradicts what you (correctly, IMO) said about hanging on to Edler, as it relates to our chances of winning a Cup.

It was completely obvious, to me, anyway, that at the time of the trade Sami Pahlsson was a significant downgrade to Cody Hodgson. A player (Pahlsson) who was 5 years removed from being relevant, really, just going through the motions on Columbus and earning a paycheque - not unlike what he did as a Canuck. That was a terrible acquisition, which, to me, was obvious when it happened.
  • 0

#95 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,895 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 10 October 2012 - 12:41 PM

He should be traded if we can't re-sign him by the deadline.

Losing assets for nothing is a terrible way to run a club.

Still pissed at losing Jovo for nothing a few years back. We have lost more guys but he stands out most to me, he was a great Dman back then


Wasn't Jovo injured at the deadline that year........along with the entire D-corp?
  • 0

#96 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,007 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 10 October 2012 - 01:13 PM

Cody may have been getting moved, but it would not have been until the off-season, at the earliest. And support of the trade directly contradicts what you (correctly, IMO) said about hanging on to Edler, as it relates to our chances of winning a Cup.

It was completely obvious, to me, anyway, that at the time of the trade Sami Pahlsson was a significant downgrade to Cody Hodgson. A player (Pahlsson) who was 5 years removed from being relevant, really, just going through the motions on Columbus and earning a paycheque - not unlike what he did as a Canuck. That was a terrible acquisition, which, to me, was obvious when it happened.


Downgrade in what way? Pahlsson was brought in to anchor a checking line. A role that Cody simply didn't fit.

Unlike EA, you have to make a trade when what you want becomes available. Buffalo was shopping for a young center and they weren't going to wait for summer. By summer would Kassian have been gone in a different deadline deal? Would another prospect of his kind been available? Bear in mind Gillis had five on his radar and only one was available, Kassian. As I said, making the third line a checking line to give the second line more offensive ice time was a very successful strategy the year before. I had no problem with that deal. It set our third line back to it's intended role, allowed the second line to be used offensively, moved a problem child, and brought in a prospect type we sorely lacked. That's definitely not the same as moving an all-star at the deadline for prospects and /or picks.
  • 0
Posted Image

#97 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 10 October 2012 - 03:11 PM

Seems to me the year before Ballard was watching from the press box while a rookie was playing. Ballard was pretty good this past playoffs but it was only 5 games. Based on what I've seen over the past two years I'd take six Edlers over 6 Ballards without ever batting an eye. The only thing I think Ballard is truly better at is fighting. I think you've been blinded by his hip checks.


Baggins, you are too knowledgeable not to know Ballard was devastated by injury in 2010-11........I wonder how well Edler would have performed with similar injuries.

He led his club in hits in his first 5 years in the NHL. I maintain, given an injury free season, playing on his natural side he would outshine Edler every day of the week.

He is also a better, faster skater than Edler and has a wicked slap shot. I'm afraid as this video shows ..........somehow we ripped the heart out of the guy and he is only now finding his true form. On his day much more dynamic than Edler imo.


  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#98 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:54 PM

He led his club in hits in his first 5 years in the NHL. I maintain, given an injury free season, playing on his natural side he would outshine Edler every day of the week.


You can't be serious.
  • 0

#99 John Garret's moustache

John Garret's moustache

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 520 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 11

Posted 10 October 2012 - 07:23 PM

No.
  • 0
Posted Image

Thanks to Vintage Canuck. for the sick Zeppelin sig!

#100 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,007 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 10 October 2012 - 10:00 PM

Baggins, you are too knowledgeable not to know Ballard was devastated by injury in 2010-11........I wonder how well Edler would have performed with similar injuries.

He led his club in hits in his first 5 years in the NHL. I maintain, given an injury free season, playing on his natural side he would outshine Edler every day of the week.

He is also a better, faster skater than Edler and has a wicked slap shot. I'm afraid as this video shows ..........somehow we ripped the heart out of the guy and he is only now finding his true form. On his day much more dynamic than Edler imo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0owUapNUVc&feature=related


Perhaps you forgot about Edlers "devastating" back injury. Yet he came back and performed well in the playoffs. I have nothing against Ballard at all. But given the choice I would take Edler over Ballard ahy time.
  • 0
Posted Image

#101 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,078 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 10 October 2012 - 10:47 PM

You're comparing the effect of moving an all-star 40+ point d-man for prospects/picks to moving a rookie prospect for a rookie prospect? Really?

Cody was getting moved regardless. I didn't mind seeing Cody moved as bringing in Pahlsson turned the third line back into a checking line capable of playing shutdown. This in turn frees up the second line from shutdown duty to play a more offensive role. A formula that was extremely successful the previous season prior to Mahotra's freak eye injury. I didn't see it as weakening the team.

Let me know when you're finished crying about Cody.


Edit: Btw, my sig is based on the incessant whining here about CBC, Bettman, critical Canuck articles, and analyst opinions. The slightest thing, even when true, brings the crybabies out in droves. I added Cody to the existing sig after the trade was made.


I see you too are trying to help king with the basics. This is a guy who thinks you can move defensemen from side to side seamlessly. In othere words, there's lots of work to be done, and unfortunately he resists learning...
He wouldn't understand the significance of Pahlsson scoring 6 points in 19 games and being +4 while in a shut down role - the fact that he, Higgins and Hansen weren't only shutting down other team's top lines, but were carrying the play and outscoring them is a point that would be lost.
On the other hand, the fact Hodgson had a mere 8 points in 20 games and was -7 after the trade probably also bounces right off his hard head. Got his big minutes, could scarcely score more than the shut down guy who was acquired for 4th round pick, and got scored on frequently - in fact looked downright horrible and inept in his own end of the ice. Something the Canucks couldn't afford, particularly after his scoring cooled off so vapidly.
If King could actually perceive what is happening before his eyes, he's have seen that the Canucks third line was their best line at the end of the season - Daniel was injured, Kesler and the second line was also hobbling, but the third line was carrying the play against the best lines in the NHL. King though, oblivious. Complains about Pahlsson's play. Wants to move Higgins. Dumb stuff.
If the top two lines were performing normally, that trade would have paid off in spades.
But don't count on him stopping his whining about Hodgson. It's what noobs do - buy the hype and then whine and whine.

Edited by oldnews, 10 October 2012 - 10:55 PM.

  • 1

#102 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 11 October 2012 - 03:38 AM

He wouldn't understand the significance of Pahlsson scoring 6 points in 19 games and being +4 while in a shut down role - the fact that he, Higgins and Hansen weren't only shutting down other team's top lines, but were carrying the play and outscoring them is a point that would be lost.
On the other hand, the fact Hodgson had a mere 8 points in 20 games and was -7 after the trade probably also bounces right off his hard head. Got his big minutes, could scarcely score more than the shut down guy who was acquired for 4th round pick, and got scored on frequently - in fact looked downright horrible and inept in his own end of the ice. Something the Canucks couldn't afford, particularly after his scoring cooled off so vapidly.
If King could actually perceive what is happening before his eyes, he's have seen that the Canucks third line was their best line at the end of the season - Daniel was injured, Kesler and the second line was also hobbling, but the third line was carrying the play against the best lines in the NHL. King though, oblivious. Complains about Pahlsson's play. Wants to move Higgins. Dumb stuff.
If the top two lines were performing normally, that trade would have paid off in spades.
But don't count on him stopping his whining about Hodgson. It's what noobs do - buy the hype and then whine and whine.


I'm the one that buys the hype, yet you're the one that rattles off GM Mike Gillis' explanations practically verbatim out of the fact that you really can't think for yourself.

Only a completely biased homer would defend the Sami Pahlsson acquisition, which was a total failure. We got rolled by the 8th seed, so, tell me, who exactly was Pahlsson "shutting down"? In fact, who was he "shutting down" in 3 years of basement-dwelling in Columbus? Right, nobody. -9, -13, -6 in those 3 years, BTW. As I said before, he hadn't been relevant in 5 years. A 35 year-old with one foot into retirement stepping into a situation like ours was a recipe for disaster, and it played out exactly as I thought it would.

Edited by King of the ES, 11 October 2012 - 03:39 AM.

  • 0

#103 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,007 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 11 October 2012 - 06:14 AM

I'm the one that buys the hype, yet you're the one that rattles off GM Mike Gillis' explanations practically verbatim out of the fact that you really can't think for yourself.

Only a completely biased homer would defend the Sami Pahlsson acquisition, which was a total failure. We got rolled by the 8th seed, so, tell me, who exactly was Pahlsson "shutting down"? In fact, who was he "shutting down" in 3 years of basement-dwelling in Columbus? Right, nobody. -9, -13, -6 in those 3 years, BTW. As I said before, he hadn't been relevant in 5 years. A 35 year-old with one foot into retirement stepping into a situation like ours was a recipe for disaster, and it played out exactly as I thought it would.


Didn't everybody?

Vancouver 1 - 4
St Louis 0 - 4
Phoenix 1 - 4
New Jersey 2 - 4


Btw, our second line was the real failure in that series. Kesler had 3 assists but none can be credited from second line play. Raymond - 1 assist but it came playing 3rd line with Pahlsson. Booth - 1 assist but came playing first line with the Sedins. Higgins - goose egg. As a line, that second line did nothing together.


Are you actually blaming Pahlsson for Columbus being a bottom feeder???
  • 0
Posted Image

#104 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:03 AM

Didn't everybody?

Vancouver 1 - 4
St Louis 0 - 4
Phoenix 1 - 4
New Jersey 2 - 4


Does that make it any better/acceptable? No.

Are you actually blaming Pahlsson for Columbus being a bottom feeder???


Obviously not exclusively, but he was a part of that team, was he not? Kinda like how "shutdown" Jason Garrison wasn't shutting anybody down on Florida from 2009 - 2011, given their results, Sami Pahlsson was not "shutting down" anybody as a member of one of the league's worst teams from 2009 - 2012.

In fact, Sami Pahlsson's been a minus player for 11/12 of his years in the NHL. And the one "positive" year ('02-'03), he played a total of 34 games only. This is a candidate for a shutdown role? An obvious mistake to acquire him, which I knew when it happened, and what followed confirmed it. He added nothing to our team.

Edited by King of the ES, 11 October 2012 - 08:04 AM.

  • 0

#105 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,851 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:03 AM

Manny Malhotra has been a minus player for much of his career as well, so he's also not a good shutdown player? It's hard to have good +/- when you start most of your shifts in the defensive zone and play against the other team's top lines. Getting a plus would require time spent in the other team's end, unless you are very good at scoring from your own side of center.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#106 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,007 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:28 PM

Does that make it any better/acceptable? No.



Obviously not exclusively, but he was a part of that team, was he not? Kinda like how "shutdown" Jason Garrison wasn't shutting anybody down on Florida from 2009 - 2011, given their results, Sami Pahlsson was not "shutting down" anybody as a member of one of the league's worst teams from 2009 - 2012.

In fact, Sami Pahlsson's been a minus player for 11/12 of his years in the NHL. And the one "positive" year ('02-'03), he played a total of 34 games only. This is a candidate for a shutdown role? An obvious mistake to acquire him, which I knew when it happened, and what followed confirmed it. He added nothing to our team.


So you're saying Hamhuis was a failure in the shutdown role in the playoffs? He was -2 right along with Pahlsson.
  • 0
Posted Image

#107 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,895 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:38 PM

Probably a moot point..........I believe one of the key areas the owners want to address is moving the age of UFA status...........when the smoke clear, Edler might have aother year or two as an RFA
  • 1

#108 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,078 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 11 October 2012 - 07:39 PM

Does that make it any better/acceptable? No.



Obviously not exclusively, but he was a part of that team, was he not? Kinda like how "shutdown" Jason Garrison wasn't shutting anybody down on Florida from 2009 - 2011, given their results, Sami Pahlsson was not "shutting down" anybody as a member of one of the league's worst teams from 2009 - 2012.

In fact, Sami Pahlsson's been a minus player for 11/12 of his years in the NHL. And the one "positive" year ('02-'03), he played a total of 34 games only. This is a candidate for a shutdown role? An obvious mistake to acquire him, which I knew when it happened, and what followed confirmed it. He added nothing to our team.


Noob-think King. You clearly don't understand the shutdown role.
You also don't get the significance of being a mere -6 as a shutdown guy playing against the other team's top lines and pairings, while his best team-mates were in the -20 range (guys like Nash, Brassard, Tyutin, Vermette) - and shutting down nobody.
  • 0

#109 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 12 October 2012 - 03:42 AM

So you're saying Hamhuis was a failure in the shutdown role in the playoffs? He was -2 right along with Pahlsson.


Sure. I'll say that. We lost in 5!
  • 0

#110 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 12 October 2012 - 03:47 AM

Noob-think King. You clearly don't understand the shutdown role.
You also don't get the significance of being a mere -6 as a shutdown guy playing against the other team's top lines and pairings, while his best team-mates were in the -20 range (guys like Nash, Brassard, Tyutin, Vermette) - and shutting down nobody.


You obviously only looked at 2011-12 numbers before making your assertion; Pahlsson's +/- numbers were worse than those guys' for the prior two years.
  • 0

#111 n00bxQb

n00bxQb

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,943 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 09

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:25 AM

By King of the ES's definition of being a shutdown player, Ovechkin is a better shutdown player than Datsyuk :lol:
  • 0

#112 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,007 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 13 October 2012 - 11:19 AM

Sure. I'll say that. We lost in 5!


So at least we've established that acquiring Pahlsson isn't the reason we lost to LA and that signing Hamhuis may have been a mistake as he failed in a 5 game series.

But would keeping Cody have changed the outcome? Would Hamhuis have been better defensively with Cody on the ice with him instead of Pahlsson? I somehow doubt that. Cody averaged 1 goal every 4 games in the regular season with us. We all know that scoring becomes tougher in the playoffs though. Also factor in we were up against one of the leagues best goalies. Would Cody have scored more than 1 goal? We'll never know for sure, but given the odds the answer is unlikely.

So Cody was unlikely to score more than the 1 goal Pahlsson supplied while not being as strong defensively as Pahlsson. Was Hodgson at least better at faceoffs? No. Meaning we'd start with the puck less often and have to play defensively more often. So wouldn't that mean that keeping Hodgson would likely have resulted more scoring chances against us without any significant increase in goals for?


Yet you seem to believe Hodgson somehow would have saved the playoffs for us. Sorry, but I don't see it.
  • 0
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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.