86Viking Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Edler and Hamhuis both have NTC, I realize this. But Edler would net a larger return as he is a signed top 4 D man, so a team may give better assets to obtain him. If we do move him I suggest resigning Hamhuis. Moving Hamhuis could net a decent return, but not as much as Edler. hamhuis likely resigns for less than his current deal, thus we then free up 5m additional by moving edler. hamhuis resigned to a career ending deal of say 4yr term and 3-3.75m cap hit. I dont know how low we could sign him for but under 4m I would hope. I think he could be the veteran leadership D man we should keep. Hamhuis is a leader, Edler I dont see carying those same values, nothing against Edler but I think the media attention and pressure on him here is just too much for someone like himeself. Edler to Dallas for a deal including Honka and maybe they move Ritchie also? Other teams would likely have high interest in Edler if he was available, would just depend where Benning could get him to waive for. Again I reiterate I know Edler has a NTC, i also know he stated a couple years ago you dont sign a deal with a NTC to then go and waive it. Well news flash thats why all players get a NTC, but during their deals players either ask for a move or management comes to them and eventually gets them to waive. To maximize return for this team to move forward the better option to move likely is Edler, I really hope this doesnt turn into a he wont waive his NTC thread with the above statement being brought up. Look at what Benning has done, he moved players with NTC so it is possible, lets discuss this as what move best suits the Canucks needs going forward. Thanks, if you read this far I will be impressed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Which one wants out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 I would trade them both and give every effort to re-sign Hamhuis in the off season. Edler won't waive though so it's a moot point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 20 minutes ago, Warhippy said: I would trade them both and give every effort to re-sign Hamhuis in the off season. Edler won't waive though so it's a moot point Has Edler recently come out and said he still refuses to not waive, or is this going back 2yrs? Sure we could move both i didnt want to suggest that, would be full on tank for mathews tho, which I would love us to try and get. I think hamhuis is a good mentor for our young D, he is more suited for that role over someone like Edler, and before we are competitive and making a playoff run winning a round or more Edler is likely at the end of his deal or it has past already. Also, this is first time doing a Poll had no idea what i was doing, so if its misleading i apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 4 minutes ago, Yotes said: Has Edler recently come out and said he still refuses to not waive, or is this going back 2yrs? Sure we could move both i didnt want to suggest that, would be full on tank for mathews tho, which I would love us to try and get. I think hamhuis is a good mentor for our young D, he is more suited for that role over someone like Edler, and before we are competitive and making a playoff run winning a round or more Edler is likely at the end of his deal or it has past already. Also, this is first time doing a Poll had no idea what i was doing, so if its misleading i apologize. I have no idea where Edler is, this claim he refused to waive was from a few years back, but even though it would gut our current D I would trade them both and garner the largest possible return I could. Try to re-sign Hamhuis in the off season and take a run at one or two of the younger more feasible UFA d-men available. Yes it would mean we'd be signalling we're not playoff bound this year, but being able to pick up the prospects we need in the org and draft the needs we have I'd be willing to risk missing the playoffs this and next year to finish the rebuild/retool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 1 minute ago, Warhippy said: I have no idea where Edler is, this claim he refused to waive was from a few years back, but even though it would gut our current D I would trade them both and garner the largest possible return I could. Try to re-sign Hamhuis in the off season and take a run at one or two of the younger more feasible UFA d-men available. Yes it would mean we'd be signalling we're not playoff bound this year, but being able to pick up the prospects we need in the org and draft the needs we have I'd be willing to risk missing the playoffs this and next year to finish the rebuild/retool I think it is the right choice also, but I dont see Benning moving both at the same time. This is the year we go all out and move our assets with value IMO. 2 tradeable ufa in Vrbata and Hamhuis, try moving the trio of nhl waived nhl players. If an offer for Edler presents itself and is of high value you make that move. It would be one year of major selling off, but we would net some good prospects and a pile of picks. Spend some coin July 1, and see what unfolds next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Edler for Bowey straight up, salary retained? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 Dallas fans seem to want to include eakin in a deal for Edler, I think he can be a W and not just a C. He has a new cap hit of 3.8m going forward, is 24. night not be a bad addition as he is nhl ready now. Eakin, Honka and a 1st or try for ritchie instead? for Edler cracknell or nhl waived forward prust or higgins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 eakin sutter hansen would be a good 2 way speedy shutdown line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Warhippy said: I would trade them both and give every effort to re-sign Hamhuis in the off season. Edler won't waive though so it's a moot point Was gonna post the same notion. Sbisa too. Move the lefties!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 not sure why everyone wants hamhuis resigned do you realize hes only score once in 140 gamesand it was a empty net and brings no physicality, whereas edler scores 30 points every yr eats huge minutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Warhippy said: I have no idea where Edler is, this claim he refused to waive was from a few years back, but even though it would gut our current D I would trade them both and garner the largest possible return I could. Try to re-sign Hamhuis in the off season and take a run at one or two of the younger more feasible UFA d-men available. Yes it would mean we'd be signalling we're not playoff bound this year, but being able to pick up the prospects we need in the org and draft the needs we have I'd be willing to risk missing the playoffs this and next year to finish the rebuild/retool I think Edler made the statement that he wouldn't waive in the same year he signed his new contract. Gillis had inked him to a very reasonable deal but then looked to try and trade him that very summer. Edler essentially said, and rightfully so, that he wouldn't sign a new contract only to be asked to waive it within the same year. Oh Gillis, you so crazy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 8 minutes ago, canuktravella said: not sure why everyone wants hamhuis resigned do you realize hes only score once in 140 gamesand it was a empty net and brings no physicality, whereas edler scores 30 points every yr eats huge minutes hammer is a leader, Edler I wouldnt say is that. Hammer could mentor the youth. Edler has higher value, Hammer would likely take a discount to sign here. as for pts, look at tanev, shutdown guy has no shot what so ever, yet he is deployed on the PP. tanev had 20pt last year so is he a waste of a roster spot, he makes over 4m too. Younger than hammer yes, but if hammer took around 3m we would be wise to keep him I think. He wants to be here, not always the case with players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 4 minutes ago, Yotes said: hammer is a leader, Edler I wouldnt say is that. Hammer could mentor the youth. Edler has higher value, Hammer would likely take a discount to sign here. as for pts, look at tanev, shutdown guy has no shot what so ever, yet he is deployed on the PP. tanev had 20pt last year so is he a waste of a roster spot, he makes over 4m too. Younger than hammer yes, but if hammer took around 3m we would be wise to keep him I think. He wants to be here, not always the case with players leaders getting paid 4.5 mill a yr are expected to score more than once ever 140 games edler leads through points and eating huge minutes against top team opposition. hockey is a business and hammers time is done in vancouver he shoukd have been traded the summer after lucic hip check knocked him outta playoffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 so you wouldnt even entertain offering Hamhuis a deal in july if he accepted less money, he is washed up and done lilkely out of the league soon? Is he that bad? His debut back was good, if he plays close to that he is a serviceable veteran #4 d in my books. If he signs at high 2's to low mid 3's i would be ok, if he wants the same or more, then ya he can go elsewhere, maybe pull a willie mitchell and prove us wrong and play till almost 40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Today I learned that defencemen aren't anything if they are not putting up points. Defencemen must be forwards or they're expendable... Today I learned we need more forwards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 15 minutes ago, canuktravella said: leaders getting paid 4.5 mill a yr are expected to score more than once ever 140 games edler leads through points and eating huge minutes against top team opposition. hockey is a business and hammers time is done in vancouver he shoukd have been traded the summer after lucic hip check knocked him outta playoffs The intangibles are what you miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 7 minutes ago, Yotes said: so you wouldnt even entertain offering Hamhuis a deal in july if he accepted less money, he is washed up and done lilkely out of the league soon? Is he that bad? His debut back was good, if he plays close to that he is a serviceable veteran #4 d in my books. If he signs at high 2's to low mid 3's i would be ok, if he wants the same or more, then ya he can go elsewhere, maybe pull a willie mitchell and prove us wrong and play till almost 40 Hamhuis is NOT going to re-sign for "high 2's to low mid 3's". Think Orpik money/term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Goblin Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 But Hamhuis is a UFA who we could always re-sign in FA after trading him. Like I've said before, it would be insane not to trade Hammer to a contender. Look, contenders want UFAs just incase they don't fit the team's system, there's no obligation to keep them after July 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, D-Money said: Hamhuis is NOT going to re-sign for "high 2's to low mid 3's". Think Orpik money/term. I didnt say he would, but if he signed for less then we should consider it. If edmonton or another team offers him close to orpik money then good for him. Maybe thats Sanjose, but it wont be us, otherwise he would have signed that lucrative deal last summer and not played this year out as a pending ufa. He is likely gone at the deadline or as a FA if he wasnt extended prior to the season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.