31 Thoughts: The Podcast.... on the Canucks

[CanadianRugby]

I like these two guys as analysts and they talked about the Canucks on their latest podcast.  Here's what they had to say.  I shortened some of the conversation, you can hear the whole thing here.  The Canucks part is at the 37:00 minute mark.  

https://www.sportsnet.ca/podcasts/31-thoughts-podcast/jan-10-2019-oilers-penguins-sharks-oh/

 

 

ON MICHAEL DEL ZOTTO & GAGNE

Jeff Marek: Vancouver Canucks... you write about Michael Del Zotto, I have questions about Quinn Hughes and Alex Edler.  Let's start with MDZ.

 

Elliotte Friedman:  You know he's not playing, he played 12 minutes in Montreal.  I saw him come off the ice, and chatted with him briefly.  He wants to be smart about it, he's not going to say anything... bad.  He knows what the situation is.  I'm sure he was really disappointed he didn't get to play in Toronto because that's his hometown but he kept all that stuff quiet.  He wants to play, every player wants to play.  I think there is interest (in trading for him)… but I think what the problem is, and I think there will be some good teams that would be willing to take him as insurance... But the problem is that you don't have a lot of cap room and he's making $3million / year.  I think Vancouver was willing to eat some money but wants to wait closer to the deadline.  

 

JM:  To me Vancouver has two guys that can help on the power play and neither is being used, Gagne and MDZ.  Action on both of those players at the deadline?

 

EF:  Gagne is more difficult because he has one more year, but again I heard Vancouver was willing to take money.  I'm gonna steal a Doug McClean line here, I'm gonna tell you what I heard I'm not telling you if it's true.  I had reported Chicago was interested in Gagne and some reporters asked Jim Benning about it, he said I don't think it's right to talk about those kinds of things.  I totally get that.  (Goes on to say deal fell apart because Vancouver didn't want to take a player back for contract reasons) 

 

ON ALEX EDLER

JM:  What about Alexander Edler, having a really nice season and is up on July 1st.

 

EF:  Well Nick (Kypreos) mentioned on Saturday night that, "We can expect in the next couple of weeks the Canucks to start talks about a contract extension to Alex Edler.  Of course Edler has made it clear he has a complete no trade and even if the Canucks weren't interested in signing him at the end of the season, he still didn't want to get traded.  But the good news is he's playing his best hockey in a few years and they'll sit down and look at a deal."

 

Look Edler has a no trade clause, he controls the situation.  He has shown ZERO inclination to leave.  I believe last year Tampa Bay was interested and wanted him, and he just said no.  And I spoke to him last week in Toronto and he reiterated, I want to play for the Canucks I want to stay here.  

 

The other thing is, Pettersson has totally changed the outlook of your franchise.  All of a sudden, you're in the race... and you can say oh they've played more games they're anyone else it's not real... whatever.  Sometimes, you look at it from the Bill Parcells playbook.  You are what your record says you are, and your record right now says you're in the race.

 

I think right now if you're the Canucks and you're running the team, you're like... if we could get Pettersson some help, could we be in the race next year?  

 

JM:  So you think they'd add?  

 

EF:  I don't think they add, no no no.  I'm saying why I think extending Edler makes sense.

 

JM:  I would extend Edler all day.  

 

EF:  Because he's playing great!  Like, what are you going to do next year without Edler?

 

JM:  Here's my thinking of it.  You extend Edler because next year on the horizon you have Quinn Hughes, and you have fingers crossed if you're Vancouver and the rehab goes well and he has a good offseason somewhere on the horizon you have Olli Juolevi.  You need veteran defensemen for these guys. 

 

I always go back to the lesson of the Detroit Red Wings and Nic Lidstrom.  Lidstrom shows up in Detroit and they pair him with Brad McCrimmon, who for a young guy is fantastic.  

 

EF:  Chris Pronger!

 

JM:  Yeah you go down the list of these "generational" defensemen.  One of the common denominators is, they had a vet with them early.  You look at your blue line and you're the Canucks, is there a better guy than Alex Edler?  You resign Edler!  You do the deal!  It's an investment for your defensemen of the future.  

 

EF:  And you say look you're making $5million now, we'd like to be around there on a 3 year deal.  

 

(They go on to talk about how Canucks wanted to pull Hughes out of Michigan, but didn't end up doing it because they made a deal.  Also Canucks were sensitive that if Hughes left his team now he'd get ripped for it.  Apparently that's what happened with Okposo and Coyle.)

 

ON THE REBUILD

JM:  You mentioned that Pettersson has changed expectations for the Vancouver Canucks.  In what was once thought of a long term rebuild, might not be so long.  How close do you think Vancouver is?

 

EF:  I don't think they're close yet.  They need some more... like... Quinn Hughes, with defensemen it's always harder.  So I'm curious to see how effective he'll be, I assume he'll be in the lineup next year.  But at least you have a talent there.  

 

The one thing about Vancouver that I think has worked better.  Is a lot of these role players they signed to contracts like you have Beagle, Roussel and even Brandon Sutter who has taken a lot of abuse there.  Now you have Pettersson as your top and you have Horvat as your number 2 centre.  All of a sudden guys are playing where they're supposed to be.  You don't have to ask Pettersson or Horvat to do ridiculous amounts now.  Because you have your Sutter, you have your Beagle and at least you've solidified... in spots where you didn't necessarily think you'd be solidified.  

 

Edler and Tanev playing as well as they have, now all of a sudden you feel a lot better about your D.  Now the big key is, can Markstrom stay at his level.  He's got his doubters out there.  But the fact is, Jeff, you're looking at you're roster and you're saying... it's better than we thought.  And you know what I think.. they've gotta add.  

 

JM:  Markstrom is the big question mark.  I'm with you 100%.   We talked about this, this is someone that needs rest.  He's not going to reel off 8 games in a row.  This is why it's crucial that Demko spells off and shows signs of being able to take over that #1 spot.  

 

(Talk about how Vancouver has luxury in having Markstrom, Demko & DiPietro)

 

You have 3 guys in the most crucial position.  They have 3 that look real good.  Like to me if I'm a Vancouver Canucks fan I'm feeling real good about my team about the future. 

 

EF:  You're sitting here and saying... I like this.  And at the very least what you have are assets.  You look at Calgary and they had Riddick, they had Gilles, they had the kid from London.. Parsons and they had a couple of other guys they really liked.  You don't think 4 or 5 will turn out, but you hope 2 or 3 will.  Riddick looks like they have a guy, and they still haven't given up on Gilles or Parsons yet.  They're lottery tickets... that's what you want.  You want lottery tickets.  

 

(Talk about they feel bad DiPietro had to send out that tweet after the World Juniors)  

 

[-AJ-]

I'm starting to think this podcast has some pretty good stuff. I might start listening more regularly. Thanks for the transcript, mate.

[CanadianRugby]

32 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

I'm starting to think this podcast has some pretty good stuff. I might start listening more regularly. Thanks for the transcript, mate.

I've been listening a while, this is the first time I heard them talk in depth about the Canucks.  I used to listen to Spittin Chicklets podcast more, but getting tired of those guys.  

[WHL rocks]

Of course they will extend Edler. It's not easy to find a Dman like him. 6 mill per for  4 years.  

 

[PrinceGeorgeGoon]

There are some guys in sports radio.... check there are many guys... ok truthfully i dont enjoy most commentators since they either fandwagon their market or they regurgitate what the big names say or they argue what the big names say,,,

That said, i like Friedman. I like Hirsch, i mostly like Botch, Burke and i tolerate Kypreos. I also get a kick out of Tim and Sid but they do quite a bit of sensationalizing news and it gets quite dramatic, however, its better radio than a couple of talking heads staged next to a pretty lady.

 

P.s Zotto for a 5th, Gangne is still in the System next year and the Edler deal is going to be one year too long for one Million too many. 6x3.

[Pickly]

10 minutes ago, WHL rocks said:

Of course they will extend Edler. It's not easy to find a Dman like him. 6 mill per for  4 years.  

 

Yup something along those lines. If the canucks get lucky he may even sign for under 6, say 5.5 to 5.75. Hopefully 3 years and not 4. 

[WHL rocks]

@Pickly

I would not do 3 years if I was Edler. Not a chance. 

 

If he went on the market he could get 7 mill 4 years or maybe 6 mill 5 years.  Somehing along those lines.  

 

Canucks are lucky he's a loyal guy  hell take 1 mill per year less to stay here. But canucks have to give term. 

 

I think it'll be 4 years 6 mill per.  Let's see how it unfolds. But he definitely getting extended.   

 

He's not getting traded. Benning and company are not stupid to make a mistake like that, even if he was willing to waive his NTC. 

[Ossi Vaananen]

Thanks for posting.

 

I'm hoping they re-sign Edler. Give him what he wants, he's earned it. Just don't do the Hamhuis thing, say you'll sign him, don't sign him, and then end up the laughing stock for not dealing him for something.

 

I'm shocked that it's rumored we turned down anything for MDZ/Gagner. They're essentially cap dumps, if someone wants them, take what you can get. 

[JustNazzy]

3 hours ago, Pickly said:

Yup something along those lines. If the canucks get lucky he may even sign for under 6, say 5.5 to 5.75. Hopefully 3 years and not 4. 

How many defensemen are over the age of 34 in the NHL? 15. Edler will turn 33 in April. Sorry everyone but it's 1 year maybe two at the most but that's it.

[Angry Goose]

tip of the hat to anyone that takes the time to write stuff out for us here on CDC

[alfstonker]

2 hours ago, JustNazzy said:

How many defensemen are over the age of 34 in the NHL? 15. Edler will turn 33 in April. Sorry everyone but it's 1 year maybe two at the most but that's it.

Who are these 15 and how many would have been able to do what Edler has done in this rebuilding team. Most older vets actually try to get out of rebuilding teams. Look at Phaneuf and he only plays 14mins a night.

 

Edler is not like other vet Ds. His work rate is "Swedish" (Kronwall is 38 and still clocking 23+ mins)

 

We need to think that he has to be around the likes of Rathbone, Hughes, Juolevi for 3/4 years and that is what I would give him. He has earned it.

4x $6m sounds fair to me. That will make him 37 years old and if the Sedins can hack it to 37 I think Edler will do it with one arm behind his back.

 

[JeremyCuddles]

I am not for giving Edler more than 5mil on a 4 year deal. Especially if he wants a NTC again, which he likely will given he really likes Vancouver. I'd give him 2 years at 6 per, but if he wants 4 years with a NTC he can take 4-4.5mil. We have leverage here. "You seemingly really like Vancouver, do us a solid. We'll give you your NTC, give you 3-4 years. You take 4.5mil. Don't want it, fine take the short term 2 year deal with no NTC. Don't want that either? Kay bye."

 

I like Edler's game this year, but we are getting down to crunch time with needing to save cap for the next core (Boeser is up this season, Petey in 2 years, Hughes maybe in 2 years and who knows how good he might be in that time, no telling how good Demko becomes). The expansion draft is also coming. Gotta be methodical with the contracts we give to 30+ year old players. He doesn't need a 4 year deal to mentor and shelter Hughes and Juolevi. Not to mention we also have Guddy, Tanev and even Stecher to help these kids along. All guys management has praised for their leadership qualities. Edler might even want a NMC on a 4 year deal so we don't just expansion bait him to Seattle.

[The Great Canucks]

No way do you sign Edler for four years. You sign him for two.

[Pickly]

5 hours ago, JustNazzy said:

How many defensemen are over the age of 34 in the NHL? 15. Edler will turn 33 in April. Sorry everyone but it's 1 year maybe two at the most but that's it.

I highly, highly doubt he signs a 1 year deal. He’s 32 not 36. He still has good hockey left in him and the Canucks actually need Edler back there. You simply can’t just lowball him off the hop thinking you have the edge because the guy doesn’t want to leave Vancouver. I said 3 years and @WHL rocks said 4. I think it’s pretty fair to assume that given the market for good defenceman out there he would definitely fetch 6+ @ at least 3 years. 

 

Also, some food for thought. Say you let him walk. That leaves you with Tanev as the only legitimate top 4(!!!) defenceman on this team. We all know he’s good for 50-60 games a year. So when he gets hurt, who logs the minutes in Edler and Tanevs absence AND won’t cost the team games? 

[Down by the River]

Tell Edler something like:

 

If you don't waive at the TDL, in the summer we will offer you a two-year deal at a 10% raise. But, if you waive at the TDL, why Jul 1 comes around, we will offer you a three-year deal at a 15% raise. 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Down by the River said:

Tell Edler something like:

 

If you don't waive at the TDL, in the summer we will offer you a two-year deal at a 10% raise. But, if you waive at the TDL, why Jul 1 comes around, we will offer you a three-year deal at a 15% raise. 

My sister approves, and she’s the smrt one. 

[Stelar]

1 hour ago, Pickly said:

I highly, highly doubt he signs a 1 year deal. He’s 32 not 36. He still has good hockey left in him and the Canucks actually need Edler back there. You simply can’t just lowball him off the hop thinking you have the edge because the guy doesn’t want to leave Vancouver. I said 3 years and @WHL rocks said 4. I think it’s pretty fair to assume that given the market for good defenceman out there he would definitely fetch 6+ @ at least 3 years. 

 

Also, some food for thought. Say you let him walk. That leaves you with Tanev as the only legitimate top 4(!!!) defenceman on this team. We all know he’s good for 50-60 games a year. So when he gets hurt, who logs the minutes in Edler and Tanevs absence AND won’t cost the team games? 

Jesus,  can’t  believe he is only 32. Seems like he has been here forever. 

[Dombrova22]

44 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

Tell Edler something like:

 

If you don't waive at the TDL, in the summer we will offer you a two-year deal at a 10% raise. But, if you waive at the TDL, why Jul 1 comes around, we will offer you a three-year deal at a 15% raise. 

I'd just flat out tell the guy, listen Alex we know you want to be here, and we want you here, but nows the time to help us out and get something in return. If you don't want to help us out, then we simply aren't going to resign you in the offseason. 

[aGENT]

31 minutes ago, Dombrova22 said:

I'd just flat out tell the guy, listen Alex we know you want to be here, and we want you here, but nows the time to help us out and get something in return. If you don't want to help us out, then we simply aren't going to resign you in the offseason. 

...and he walks in the summer for zilch.

 

Great job pissing him off.

 

 

[riffraff]

Three years tops.

 

people forget how much he is out of the lineup.

 

two years from now he could easily be unfit for the nhl.

 

its a contract year.  He’s playing well. Great.  But 4-6 years!?!?!?

 

get real.