-
Posts
10,143 -
Joined
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by The Lock
-
The way I see it. Edler will be missed on the back end, obviously. However, we can't let that get the better of us. If we're overpaying (although I doubt we'd be overpaying) or giving into demands that ultimately hurt our success later on, we have to learn to let go. If it's not meant to be it's not meant to be. We need to move on with or without a replacement and I think we should be happy at least that we're not giving into demands we absolutely don't want to fulfill.
-
How is it hypocritical and how do you justify yourself as being objective by only seeing certain points while ignoring other points (such as the expansion draft)? You want to be objective? Look at all the details and not just the ones that falsely "justify" your position. I don't mind you being critical about Benning either, I mean he has made mistakes and all, but there needs to be a good basis behind it rather than just lashing out because you have some mancrush on Edler.
-
You talk about not having an "unjustifiable criticism, and yet people on the other side of the coin are unjustified? Is that how this works here? I'm sitting on the fence in all of this (although I'm glad we're not having to protect him in a couple of years), but I'm not seeing you as being justified if you can't see the other side as well.
-
Tell me im wrong. Edler is Worth 5 years @ 7.5 - 8 million per
The Lock replied to Arrow 1983's topic in Canucks Talk
3 years is a lot longer than the 2 weeks mentioned earlier though. A lot can happen even in the 2 or 3 weeks let alone 3 years and if JB can't find a replacement by 3 years I think we'd have bigger issues at that point. lol Basically, if we don't have the ability to make proper trades over a long period of time like that, how can we expect to have a good team? I get that it's easy to worry about who's going to replace Edler, but if we can't even solve a problem like that.... we're going to have other holes to fill too. We have holes right now. We need to be able to fill holes to survive. We need to be able to fill holes so that Benning can keep his job. So I guess based on that I don't see Edler's hole as an issue more than I do an opportunity to get someone else in. It's not going to be easy, but these are necessary tasks that all teams have to deal with. If there are 3 wasted years, our GM didn't do his job in filling our holes. -
Tell me im wrong. Edler is Worth 5 years @ 7.5 - 8 million per
The Lock replied to Arrow 1983's topic in Canucks Talk
You asked why people are giving Edler more flak than someone like Boeser for being injured. That was my answer to that. -
Tell me im wrong. Edler is Worth 5 years @ 7.5 - 8 million per
The Lock replied to Arrow 1983's topic in Canucks Talk
I'm more wondering how would he get his nose out of the way first? That would be a hard kiss to perform to begin with before even considering the fur. -
Tell me im wrong. Edler is Worth 5 years @ 7.5 - 8 million per
The Lock replied to Arrow 1983's topic in Canucks Talk
See, and the bolded part to me is what I wholeheartedly disagree with. If we worry about the entry draft later rather than planning now, we're just postponing that step back until that time. Sure, they could counter that then, but how is that any different than doing the exact same thing now? -
Tell me im wrong. Edler is Worth 5 years @ 7.5 - 8 million per
The Lock replied to Arrow 1983's topic in Canucks Talk
Probably not easy, but that doesn't warrant having to protect Edler in the expansion draft. -
Tell me im wrong. Edler is Worth 5 years @ 7.5 - 8 million per
The Lock replied to Arrow 1983's topic in Canucks Talk
And they've reportedly had talks with him. But if Edler wants a NMC that messes up who we can protect in the expansion draft, then it's on him. Not us. We need to look out for ourselves first and foremost. To be honest, if they don't sign him and they don't get in on other defenders in the off-season, I still would prefer that over him having to be protected in the expansion draft. -
Tell me im wrong. Edler is Worth 5 years @ 7.5 - 8 million per
The Lock replied to Arrow 1983's topic in Canucks Talk
Rule of thumb: a good young player even only playing 60 games a season is likely to be favoured over a declining 33 year old playing 60 games a season. It's not about how they're being treated. It's about the reality of the situation and what's going to be better for us in the long run. -
Tell me im wrong. Edler is Worth 5 years @ 7.5 - 8 million per
The Lock replied to Arrow 1983's topic in Canucks Talk
After thinking about it. If another team's going to give that kind of contract to Edler. Let them. It's their mistake at that point and not our's -
Tell me im wrong. Edler is Worth 5 years @ 7.5 - 8 million per
The Lock replied to Arrow 1983's topic in Canucks Talk
He'd be hard to replace for sure, but we're just starting the off season and there's a ton of trade talk involving us. So I say wait and see what happens over the summer with that. Perhaps we'll have a replacement. Perhaps not. -
Tell me im wrong. Edler is Worth 5 years @ 7.5 - 8 million per
The Lock replied to Arrow 1983's topic in Canucks Talk
No whammies as well? -
Tell me im wrong. Edler is Worth 5 years @ 7.5 - 8 million per
The Lock replied to Arrow 1983's topic in Canucks Talk
I think he hasn't signed yet because of the Seattle expansion. From what all of the sources have been saying, it's not about money at all. It's about whether or not he'll get a NMC and have to be protected come expansion draft. -
Tell me im wrong. Edler is Worth 5 years @ 7.5 - 8 million per
The Lock replied to Arrow 1983's topic in Canucks Talk
So you want to pay what will be a 38 year old by the end of his contract 8 mil? He's not even playing a full season now. What makes you think that will not get any worse? And this isn't even considering what age does to skills. lol -
[Proposal] Erickson for shattenkirk
The Lock replied to Canucks6's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
To be honest, Shattenkirk, Neal, Lucic, Marleau, whoever.... getting something would be better than Eriksson sticking around. That's kind of where I'm at in thinking. I hope it's not Lucic, but that's besides my point. lol -
[Proposal] Erickson for shattenkirk
The Lock replied to Canucks6's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Pudgiot? -
You don't take those plunges. Burke took the plunge on getting Kessel to Toronto and Toronto hurt big time. Milbury took several plunges and the Islanders ended up with one of the worst teams in the league. Usually, teams who take such a plunge end up lower in the standings and without assets that could have prevented such an occasion. I also want to stress the "make a good trade" part you mentioned. A plunge, as evidenced by the above paragraph, usually ends up being a bad trade. Sometimes monumentally bad.
-
Quanity for quality trades are very rare. I haven't read about that other trade, but if it's quanity for quality, it probably wouldn't work unless if Philly or Carolina or whoever we're dealing with sees similar value in that trade. There has to be a reason why the other team wants your assets and not someone else's assets, If another team offers something of quality for Pesce or Ghost or whoever you want while you are offering quantity, you're probably not getting very far in those negotiations. Now, having said that, I don't think Tanev or any of the assets you are willing to trade are crap. There's some value in each of those assets. That's why I think it would be a gross overpayment, Why trade for 1 Pesce now if we can get 2 similar players over a period of time for the same price because we didn't just throw all of our money away in a trade.
-
But see, that's the problem with this: you are giving Carolina 4 chances to have the best piece over our 1. Let me give you what I think is a reasonable comparison: Keith Ballard. Ballard looked like a great trade. He was a solid defenseman when we traded for him, arguable similar to Hamhuis. Then he got a concussion. Grabner wasn't looking like he was going to be good, and then he got better. So we got the better piece at first, but because of 1 asset out of 3 (I think Bernier and a pick (Howden) was the other 2 assets) became better than Ballard, we lost that trade. Ballard got a concussion and, what we thought wouldn't be an injured defenseman, suddenly was. What you are suggesting is for a piece similar to Ballard I would think; yet, you are offering more than what we even offered to get Ballard.
-
Consider though that, if we are looking for a shorter term, the money's likely to be higher. Parayko's contract is long term, which typically is less of a cap hit per year (but countered with signing bonuses, etc). If Edler was signing long term, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly, but I can't see Edler signing for 5 more years; therefore, it's likely to be a shorter term but for a higher cap hit. And in the grand scheme of things, it really won't make a difference because we won't be near the cap ceiling for the next couple of seasons unless if some crazy trades and/or signings are made.