Can the Canucks afford to re-sign Edler after this season?

[Rindiculous]

1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said:

The key is no NTC.  With expansion coming up we need that spot, especially if we sign a decent UFA, and improves flexibility should it extend into the time when we have to re-up Pettersson and Hughes.

A NTC is okay.  The thing we don't want is a NMC.  We don't have to protect an NTC.  This is the reason why I'd much rather have the Eriksson contract over the Lucic contract.

[IBatch]

4 hours ago, 70seven said:

The canucks should trade Edler for an equivalent RHD.

 

I vote Myers.  Maybe we include some pieces.

 

both pending UFA.  

 

Next year...

 

Hughes Tanev

Juolevi Myers

Hutton Guddy 

 

Wpg rolls into the playoffs with a top 4 of...

 

Morrisey Big Buff

Edler Trouba

 

 

That would be incredibly good for us, only problem is WNP has gone on record several times in the last month that they have no desire to trade him and want him for the playoffs.  His numbers take a big hit playing on the third pairing with limited 2nd line PP duty, Byfuglien gets the 1st unit, Trouba the 2nd, I’d put good money Myers could surpass 50 points if he manned WNP first unit too.   This summer he won’t stay unless some guys including him are willing to take big pay cuts for what they are worth.  Trouba and Laine will cost them 15 million at least, Myers will get at least 6 on the open market... he’d be a huge prize if we could convince him to sign with us, a Hughes Myers duo makes a lot of sense.  We’d be much better off spending a little more for Myers than continuing with Edler, his days of playing more than 70 games are all but over, he’s slowing down and was never that fast to begin with just don’t see how it helps the team to hold on to him unless we are paying him second pair money for two years, third pairing money for any years past that because that’s where he will be in the depth chart by then.  Hughes will take over his spot much the same way as EP has launched himself onto the first line with Boeser, Edler will play on the second PP unit.  OJ might take a year or two to pass him but he will as well, first time he’s injured he will move up, and at some point won’t go back down.    

 

It it wouldn’t be the end of the world if we re-signed him, but for less than he’s making now 3.5 x 5 is palatable, but with only him Myers and Karlsson available as of now some other team would be willing to pay more which could jack the price up past what makes any sense.  He shouldn’t make any more than Phanuef but probably will.

[Davathor]

15 hours ago, alfstonker said:

We should forget Tryamkin. Talk about needy, this is past embarrassing. 

 

We have all kinds of good (better than Tryamkin) D players emerging or just round the corner, it is just the immature fan dans on here who on the one side support Tryamkin in his wish not to fight or be too physical and then hypocritically continue to show Tryamkin fights, while wetting their pants, who keep blubbering on about him.

 

We are past all that, he had his chance to be part of what looks like becoming a very special team and he blew it. We have gone past him, we are not the team we were 2/3 years ago.

 

He was brought into a pretty bunk team, coaching issues, and let's be honest- playing like hot garbage. 

 

Saying he had his chance to be part of something great is asinine. We NEED better defence, and the Train would make us better. If he decides to come back we will have an even more special team. You think you have the right to say "you had your chance" to the next Chara? That's a petty, childish view.. And I'm so glad people like you will never run this tram. 

 

Edit - auto corrected team to tram, but I feel it fits.

[burrardstreetbullies]

2years 2 a piece ya resign him

[alfstonker]

16 hours ago, oldnews said:

Can't be bothered responding to that other ignorant rant of yours, but this post is simply factually incorrect..

 

"I asked Volkov if Tryamkin will ever return to Vancouver, " He talks about it, he wants to go back someday. He will give it 1 more shot when he's ready." #Canucks

 

someday, never comes. 

[alfstonker]

9 hours ago, Davathor said:

 

He was brought into a pretty bunk team, coaching issues, and let's be honest- playing like hot garbage. 

 

Saying he had his chance to be part of something great is asinine. We NEED better defence, and the Train would make us better. If he decides to come back we will have an even more special team. You think you have the right to say "you had your chance" to the next Chara? That's a petty, childish view.. And I'm so glad people like you will never run this tram. 

 

Edit - auto corrected team to tram, but I feel it fits.

Canucks 8-5 Boston

As I said,

[canuckistani]

Ideal scenario would be Edler waiving his NTC near the deadline to get us some more picks and come back and sign with us.

IMO, we are fine with Edler and giving him a 3-4 year, 4- 4.5mil/year salary.

He will be worth his weight in gold shielding the likes of Juolevi & Hughes when they make the team in the next year or two. He is still playing like our best LHD and a mid-low end 2LD by league-wide recokning, at the worst. 

Definite keeper.

 

[canuckistani]

17 hours ago, Davathor said:

 

He was brought into a pretty bunk team, coaching issues, and let's be honest- playing like hot garbage. 

 

Saying he had his chance to be part of something great is asinine. We NEED better defence, and the Train would make us better. If he decides to come back we will have an even more special team. You think you have the right to say "you had your chance" to the next Chara? That's a petty, childish view.. And I'm so glad people like you will never run this tram. 

 

Edit - auto corrected team to tram, but I feel it fits.

I am over Tryamkin- he is CLEARLY someone who has attitude issues relating to entitlement. 
I don't care what system he comes from, i don't care what he thinks (or does not think) about pot culture in this city - what i care for, is his REASON for going back ( or atleast, one of the main reasons): Not getting any ice time. I am sorry, but a ROOKIE defenceman, seeing close to FIFTEEN MINUTES A GAME ON AVERAGE, in on both PK and PP is whining about lack of TOI ? Or cites it as one of the reasons he wants out ?

He can stay out. 

Canucks should trade his rights and be done with it.

 

[EmilyM]

2 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

I am over Tryamkin- he is CLEARLY someone who has attitude issues relating to entitlement. 
I don't care what system he comes from, i don't care what he thinks (or does not think) about pot culture in this city - what i care for, is his REASON for going back ( or atleast, one of the main reasons): Not getting any ice time. I am sorry, but a ROOKIE defenceman, seeing close to FIFTEEN MINUTES A GAME ON AVERAGE, in on both PK and PP is whining about lack of TOI ? Or cites it as one of the reasons he wants out ?

He can stay out. 

Canucks should trade his rights and be done with it.

 

Tram would have no trade value right now. I'd rather hang onto him in the off chance he hits his potential and also decided he loves NA. A super long shot, but not as long of a shot as the garbage we would get in return for him in a deal.

[canuckistani]

1 minute ago, EmilyM said:

Tram would have no trade value right now. I'd rather hang onto him in the off chance he hits his potential and also decided he loves NA. A super long shot, but not as long of a shot as the garbage we would get in return for him in a deal.

Yep i agree. We should simply be on the lookout to trade his rights when we can realistically get a 2R/3R pick for him and say goodbye to his entitlement attitude.

[shazzam]

Considering the capspace, the expansion draft, Edler's age and the prospects we having coming in on the left side. I hope we get a 2 year deal with a higher cap hit to get Edler to agree to the term.

[theo5789]

What I'm hearing from some that I feel like are setting themselves up for disappointment (intentionally or not) are a few things.

 

First the suggestion about him "never" waiving his NTC. He's said he will waive if he's no longer wanted on the team. So if he doesn't waive then the team has told him he's in our plans. So no need to twist it so it seems like Edler is handcuffing the team for a clause that he is indeed allowed to use.

 

Second, the suggestion that he will sign for a discount because he wants to be here. I think the biggest discount might be like 500k to stay, but he still will go after market value and that is to be expected especially for a guy in the second half of his career. I think he could get 6 million if he hits the market, so a 5 million per year deal IMO is still a great deal (500k discount and 500k for a NTC). So I think those suggesting 2-3 million will be disappointed. I think it's fair to suggest to offer him more money for shorter term, but I think we will see a 3 year 5-5.5 million dollar extension. Beyond that we would go a year or two at a time and at that point probably around 3 million a year depending on his play at that point and if we still need him.

 

And third, the whole trade and re-sign thing is going back to the first point that if he's asked to waive, then likely the bridge will be burned on him returning anyway. Not impossible if he's willing to play elsewhere for a while, but then don't expect a great trade return on a pure rental.

[krutovsdonut]

we'd be crazy not to resign a player of edler's calibre if we do not have to overpay him the way we do most ufas.  i mean he might even play for a home town discount. 

[Gaudette Celly]

22 hours ago, Rindiculous said:

A NTC is okay.  The thing we don't want is a NMC.  We don't have to protect an NTC.  This is the reason why I'd much rather have the Eriksson contract over the Lucic contract.

Better than NMC alright, but the more flexibility the better when nearing the end of it.  If he really wants it, then he's going to have to give on the other end ($).  NMC should be a non-starter though, unless he only gets 2 years.

[aGENT]

16 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

What I'm hearing from some that I feel like are setting themselves up for disappointment (intentionally or not) are a few things.

 

First the suggestion about him "never" waiving his NTC. He's said he will waive if he's no longer wanted on the team. So if he doesn't waive then the team has told him he's in our plans. So no need to twist it so it seems like Edler is handcuffing the team for a clause that he is indeed allowed to use.

 

Second, the suggestion that he will sign for a discount because he wants to be here. I think the biggest discount might be like 500k to stay, but he still will go after market value and that is to be expected especially for a guy in the second half of his career. I think he could get 6 million if he hits the market, so a 5 million per year deal IMO is still a great deal (500k discount and 500k for a NTC). So I think those suggesting 2-3 million will be disappointed. I think it's fair to suggest to offer him more money for shorter term, but I think we will see a 3 year 5-5.5 million dollar extension. Beyond that we would go a year or two at a time and at that point probably around 3 million a year depending on his play at that point and if we still need him.

 

And third, the whole trade and re-sign thing is going back to the first point that if he's asked to waive, then likely the bridge will be burned on him returning anyway. Not impossible if he's willing to play elsewhere for a while, but then don't expect a great trade return on a pure rental.

Generally agree vociferously.

 

Though I think if we sign him for 3+ years (I'd prefer 2-3) we'd likely be able to get him for $4.5-$5. Time will tell though. Either way, yes, the $2-3m comments are laughable.

 

On your last paragraph though, while I think it's the least likely scenario, there's no reason to think it would burn a bridge if approached appropriately.

 

'We'd love to re-sign you this summer for these agreed on terms but if you want to help out your current and future team, we'd love adding some assets for you to go play on a contender for a couple months, have a good shot at a cup and come back to a deeper team this summer. What ya think Eagle?'

 

No bridges burned. And yes, he's perfectly fine to simply stay put as his contract dictates, should he choose to.

 

Also, generally speaking, teams making these sorts of deals are looking for pure rentals. Hasn't seem to hurt the value of countless similar deals. IMO, we'd get solid value.

 

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Hutton Wink said:

Better than NMC alright, but the more flexibility the better when nearing the end of it.  If he really wants it, then he's going to have to give on the other end ($).  NMC should be a non-starter though, unless he only gets 2 years.

I'm perfectly ok with a L-NTC. Give him some security and choice in where he goes when the time comes.

 

L-NTC's seem to be far more Benning's M.O. anyway. 

[Davathor]

11 hours ago, alfstonker said:

Canucks 8-5 Boston

As I said,

 

Yeah great point, we don't need better defence or goaltending. Rebuild over, time to buy at the deadline. Who needs a mobile 10 foot tall defenceman anyways 

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

Generally agree vociferously.

 

Though I think if we sign him for 3+ years (I'd prefer 2-3) we'd likely be able to get him for $4.5-$5. Time will tell though. Either way, yes, the $2-3m comments are laughable.

 

On your last paragraph though, while I think it's the least likely scenario, there's no reason to think it would burn a bridge if approached appropriately.

 

'We'd love to re-sign you this summer for these agreed on terms but if you want to help out your current and future team, we'd love adding some assets for you to go play on a contender for a couple months, have a good shot at a cup and come back to a deeper team this summer. What ya think Eagle?'

 

No bridges burned. And yes, he's perfectly fine to simply stay put as his contract dictates, should he choose to.

 

Also, generally speaking, teams making these sorts of deals are looking for pure rentals. Hasn't seem to hurt the value of countless similar deals. IMO, we'd get solid value.

 

I'm not saying it's an impossibility that a trade and re-sign won't work, but I'm not going to hold it against him if he just simply chooses to stay. The impression I get is that it's just so simple and justifiable that it could be a reality based on how you stated it should be asked of him that it would be the expectation and if it doesn't happen then there will be anger towards Edler for not helping the team or whatever argument may come up. Edler has stated that he's willing to waive his NTC if he's no longer wanted here, so it's kind of a fine line to ask at all. Not to say they cannot have that discussion, but it would appear that he's staying until you want him gone (whether that means asking him to waive or not re-signing him at all).

 

The risk for Edler, even if it might seem ideal to some to go to a contender and try for a cup, is that it's extra unpaid games and there is a risk of injury. What happens if he hurts himself in the playoff run? Do the Canucks still sign him on the agreed upon deal discussed prior? Its easy to say that it's everyone's dream to win the cup, but these are also family people that need to look out for their long term future and it doesn't make them lesser players. It benefits Edler to simply stay for his sake and he provides enough benefit to our future where he eats the hard minutes to ease the young guys in and give them a mentor.

 

It depends on the market for his value at the deadline of course. Would be nice to get a 1st/decent prospect back, but anything less I wouldn't even bother really.