Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Why Edler must be traded this year (Discussion)


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Threads like this just highlight how ignorant and under-appreciative CDC is of some of the Canucks. Edler is the most underrated player on these forums. He has literally been the only consistent force on this blueline all season long. 24-25 minutes a night playing with essentially 5 defencemen who belong in the press-box or AHL on a nightly basis, and somehow Alex Edler has held our defence together. When he's on, we have a chance at winning games, when he has an off-night we get blown out.

Most of our games depend on how Edler, the Sedins and Miller play. You take away Edler from this blueline and we're the worst in the West by a long shot. No one else is going to play those heavy minutes that well.

People just see the occasional brain-fart or bad pass and judge Edler but the fact is that all the defencemen in the league make bad plays. Seabrook cost Chicago a game the other week on a brutal pass up the middle in OT similar to Edler's gaff against LA. They all make mistakes, especially defencemen past their prime. The fact of the matter is that Edler does FAR FAR FAR more good to this team than bad which is why he has to stay.

Unless we can miraculously trade Edler + picks/prospects for a defenceman who's younger and can come in and eat up his 25 minutes a night, we are worse off by trading him.

 

It's not that people are under rating edler.  He's a decent D man, he's an important piece to our current team, current being the key word.  But what really is this team?...a bubble playoff team.  If that's all edler is helping us accomplish then how much value does that really bring this team.  This team is in the middle of a transition.  We are 3-4 years away from really becoming a cup contending team.  We're not in a position to go all in mode to pick up assets and win the cup.  There's assets (young right handed D) we still need to acquire to get to that spot, assets that can be acquired by trading a player like edler.  

Sure Edler plays big minutes this year.  But that's short term thinking and right now we need to be thinking long term.  Edler plays so much minutes because we don't other options.  But if we had an actually top 4 there'd less dependancy on our first pairing.  Add in the money that we save in cap can go towards a UFA 3-4 year stop gap to come in a fill some of those minutes.  

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edler for a around 25 or under right handed D *cough Hamonic* would be fantastic. 

Then you sign a lefty UFA D in the summer to tide us over until prospects are ready in 4'ish years. 

Next year's D:

Yandle/Goligoski, Hamonic

Sbisa, Tanev 

Hutton, Bartkowski 

Pedan, Tryamkin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:
6 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Sorry GT......it was really in response to  Tyhee....but I got carried away.......but I think it would go something like that.....

Apologies, again!

Cheers!

 

You seem to have been replying to something that was beyond the point I was making, though.

I replied to a poster saying the Canucks could tell Edler he wasn't in their future plans.  I thought suggesting someone say that to Edler was silly enough to make both the gm and player laugh.

I wasn't commenting on whether there would be a way to convince Edler to move.  I was saying telling your top-minute defenceman, who plays all situations and against the opponents' best players, that he's not in your plans is laughable.

You started off with Benning saying something much different than the post I was ridiculing.  It had nothing to do with the limited point I was making.

btw, I don't think Edler-Karlsson would be a likely pairing.  Tanev is imo more the type of defender that a guy like Karlsson is best with.  Karlsson takes risks and a steady, reliable guy helps him be able to do that without fear that both defenders will be out of position.   Edler doesn't take a great many risks but he's in between-in his pairing with Tanev he's the more dynamic while Tanev is the steady reliable guy to cover.  And, do you really think it in any way realistic that an agent would suggest someone can sign with Seattle as a FA in two years?  (And I'm not referring to the fact that Edler's contract has 3.5 seasons still to go.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, tyhee said:

You seem to have been replying to something that was beyond the point I was making, though.

I replied to a poster saying the Canucks could tell Edler he wasn't in their future plans.  I thought suggesting someone say that to Edler was silly enough to make both the gm and player laugh.

I wasn't commenting on whether there would be a way to convince Edler to move.  I was saying telling your top-minute defenceman, who plays all situations and against the opponents' best players, that he's not in your plans is laughable.

You started off with Benning saying something much different than the post I was ridiculing.  It had nothing to do with the limited point I was making.

btw, I don't think Edler-Karlsson would be a likely pairing.  Tanev is imo more the type of defender that a guy like Karlsson is best with.  Karlsson takes risks and a steady, reliable guy helps him be able to do that without fear that both defenders will be out of position.   Edler doesn't take a great many risks but he's in between-in his pairing with Tanev he's the more dynamic while Tanev is the steady reliable guy to cover.  And, do you really think it in any way realistic that an agent would suggest someone can sign with Seattle as a FA in two years?  (And I'm not referring to the fact that Edler's contract has 3.5 seasons still to go.)

Naw Tyhee.........I have big respect got for you.....just joking around.......sorry!

But when is the right time is the question I propose? I don't think Benning got it right last time.....waiting too long just kills a rebuild........and even if you are wrong by a year or 2, on Edler, your assets have progressed during that time,,,,,,,my point was Benning failed to recognize that last year....therefor failed in my eyes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Management wants the team to be as competitive as possible during this transition. The team doesn't want to go to a full on rebuild so moving Edler does not make sense as it would leave a huge hole in our defense which is weak as hell already and we have nothing coming in the pipeline. We have a good number of solid forward prospects though so I could see some veteran forwards traded away.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J.R. said:

Edler for a around 25 or under right handed D *cough Hamonic* would be fantastic. 

Then you sign a lefty UFA D in the summer to tide us over until prospects are ready in 4'ish years. 

Next year's D:

Yandle/Goligoski, Hamonic

Sbisa, Tanev 

Hutton, Bartkowski 

Pedan, Tryamkin

I wouldn't be against this because we're getting someone who can play Edler's hard 20+ minutes. Problem is, that UFA is going to be hard to get, and if Yandle or Goligoski are gone then we're really in trouble because suddenly our best left handed defenceman is Sbisa followed by Hutton, then Bartkowski and Pedan. Arguably the weakest LD guys in the entire NHL.

I'd really try and build a trade around Hamhuis for Hamonic when he returns (hopefully a few weeks before the trade deadline). Give them a top scoring winger + Hamhuis + pick for Hamonic instead of a more even Edler-for-Hamonic swap.

That way here's our best-case defence:

Yandle - Hamonic

Edler - Tanev

Hutton - Sbisa

Bartkowski/Biega

 

And our worst-case defence:

Edler - Hamonic

Hutton - Tanev

Sbisa - Biega

Bartkowski/Pedan etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st, 2nd, 3rd, top 4 D prospect to start.

Tanev is our best defensive defenseman, but Edler is our best offensive defenseman. Ask him to waive and make the asking price high. If you are on to something here; then there probably won't be many defenseman of his calibre available at the deadline.

If we wanna win this season, we keep him. If we want to build for the future with no guarantees, we trade him. But I'd like to think we're winners. 

We need to make winning a tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I wouldn't be against this because we're getting someone who can play Edler's hard 20+ minutes. Problem is, that UFA is going to be hard to get, and if Yandle or Goligoski are gone then we're really in trouble because suddenly our best left handed defenceman is Sbisa followed by Hutton, then Bartkowski and Pedan. Arguably the weakest LD guys in the entire NHL.

 

NYI has said they don't want an aged rental, Hammer would be a bottom pairing left handed D on the Isles.  Sadly I don't even know if Edler fits there plans either, but, in terms of value it could work.  Canuck will have a ton of cap space this summer and adding Edler to that list (even with taking on Hamonic) canucks will have around 20 million in cap to spend.  We can afford to out bid any team in UFA this summer.  Even if we have to over pay slightly for a 4-5 year stop gap in Yandle (who's also 29) we can afford it.   Worst case scenario we just resign Hammer this summer who could be a vermette situation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I wouldn't be against this because we're getting someone who can play Edler's hard 20+ minutes. Problem is, that UFA is going to be hard to get, and if Yandle or Goligoski are gone then we're really in trouble because suddenly our best left handed defenceman is Sbisa followed by Hutton, then Bartkowski and Pedan. Arguably the weakest LD guys in the entire NHL.

We'll have enough cap space this summer to outbid pretty much anyone if we so choose. 

I for one would prefer questionable left D depth for a year than the current questionable right D depth we have. Left D are far more common and more readily available via trade, UFA or our own prospect pool. I'd target Yandle, Goligoski and Hamhuis in that order. We could easily cobble something together for a year that's no worse than what we have now (which is a cobbled together unit lacking right side depth) and be better positioned mooching forward with the new core. 

Hamhuis for Hamonic is likely a non starter as I feel if we could even get them to agree to him, they'd demand an overpayment elsewhere (prospects). Something like Hamhuis, Subban and one of Boesser/Virtanen plus a high pick. IMO, Edler or Tanev are the pieces to to get it done and I prefer to keep Tanev simply because of our lack of right D depth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with an Edler for Hamonic trade and we gain years, which with our particular make up would be wise. I don't see it as a one for one trade though, despite Hamonic's age........

Edler > Hamonic at this point,

Break down........age: Hamonic > Edler, defensive abilities: Harmonic = Edler, Offensive abilities: Hamonic < Edler,

                           Loyalty: Hamonic < Edler  Contract (Cost/Length): Hamonic > Edler

It is pretty even when you break it down, but I think the kicker is Hamonic want to leave

If I was going to make any kind of deal with he Islanders, it would have to be pretty close to straight across...........

Hamonic + 2016-3rd for Edler 2016-4th This will move our pick up about 15 to 20 spots ( like I said subtle )

This would give us a very good right side and weaken our left considerably, but from what I have seen both in the 2016 Draft and the UFA market, it should be easier to get a LHD, at worst our LDH group is stronger than our RHD, and we improve by that alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

...

But when is the right time is the question I propose?  ...

I almost didn't post at all on this thread in consideration that you might point out that I hadn't answered your question.  Now that's happened but I'm really not able to add anything to the conversation that isn't obvious to everyone.  Of course, others will have different opinions on some of the the considerations and so reach a different conclusion-you, for example-but what those considerations are is probably obvious to all.

1.  Edler has been reported to be unwilling to waive no trade clause.  He's also an important part of the core of this team. 

When Garrison was approached he was coming off a relatively poor season.  He isn't a fast skater and the new gm placed some emphasis on speed.  He wasn't an overly physical player and the new gm placed some emphasis on physicality.  In essence, the things that Garrison brought were not highly valued by the new gm.  It may not have been tough for Benning to ask him to waive-twice, apparently.

Similarly, Bieksa's effectiveness had slipped fairly dramatically.  It's easy to speculate that Benning didn't consider Bieksa good enough to make much of a contribution any more.

With Edler, if one wants to see what the coach thinks of him, look at his usage.  Look at his toi and what situations he plays in.  The likelihood with this veteran is that if the coach values him, the gm can't reasonably think he's not important to the team.  It's not the same as the other d-men with ntc that the Canucks have moved. 

2.  As you've pointed out his value in trade is unlikely to get higher than it is now.

3.  In my view the Canuck defence currently consists of two guys who are reasonable top pair or good 2nd pair defenders and a mishmash of mostly bottom pair and depth defenders.  (I hate to say that with Hamhuis lumped into the 2nd bracket, but with his injuries the last couple seasons it would be dangerous to count on him being in his former form very often.)

As for future improvement, only Hutton imo is likely to have an upside much greater than he is now.  Beyond that, we're looking for players not presently with the Canucks-Pedan, Tryamkin, Brisebois etc.

That leads to the question of what the level of the Canuck defence would be if Edler were traded without much in immediate defensive help coming back.

There are some that think Edler would be easily replaced.  I'm not among them.  Imo losing Edler without getting a solid defender back would make the Canucks considerably worse, bad enough to send the Canucks down to level of the worst NHL teams.  (Yes, some believe they're already there.)

That leads us back to how much we believe in gutting the team now in exchange for better picks. I'm not a fan of that approach.  It won't surprise you based on earlier threads that I'm among those not in favour of leaving a void on defence with Tanev (and when healthy perhaps still Hamhuis) as the only defenceman who can reasonably be called a top-pair defenceman.

I wouldn't be in favour of trading Edler for just picks or prospects who aren't NHL ready without also strengthening the defence somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, tyhee said:

I almost didn't post at all on this thread in consideration that you might point out that I hadn't answered your question.  Now that's happened but I'm really not able to add anything to the conversation that isn't obvious to everyone.  Of course, others will have different opinions on some of the the considerations and so reach a different conclusion-you, for example-but what those considerations are is probably obvious to all.

1.  Edler has been reported to be unwilling to waive no trade clause.  He's also an important part of the core of this team. 

When Garrison was approached he was coming off a relatively poor season.  He isn't a fast skater and the new gm placed some emphasis on speed.  He wasn't an overly physical player and the new gm placed some emphasis on physicality.  In essence, the things that Garrison brought were not highly valued by the new gm.  It may not have been tough for Benning to ask him to waive-twice, apparently.

Similarly, Bieksa's effectiveness had slipped fairly dramatically.  It's easy to speculate that Benning didn't consider Bieksa good enough to make much of a contribution any more.

With Edler, if one wants to see what the coach thinks of him, look at his usage.  Look at his toi and what situations he plays in.  The likelihood with this veteran is that if the coach values him, the gm can't reasonably think he's not important to the team.  It's not the same as the other d-men with ntc that the Canucks have moved. 

2.  As you've pointed out his value in trade is unlikely to get higher than it is now.

3.  In my view the Canuck defence currently consists of two guys who are reasonable top pair or good 2nd pair defenders and a mishmash of mostly bottom pair and depth defenders.  (I hate to say that with Hamhuis lumped into the 2nd bracket, but with his injuries the last couple seasons it would be dangerous to count on him being in his former form very often.)

That leads to the question of what the level of the Canuck defence would be if Edler were traded without much in immediate defensive help coming back.

There are some that think Edler would be easily replaced.  I'm not among them.  Imo losing Edler without getting a solid defender back would make the Canucks considerably worse, bad enough to send the Canucks down to level of the worst NHL teams.  (Yes, some believe they're already there.)

That leads us back to how much we believe in gutting the team now in exchange for better picks. I'm not a fan of that approach.  It won't surprise you based on earlier threads that I'm among those not in favour of leaving a void on defence with Tanev (and when healthy perhaps still Hamhuis) as the only defenceman who can reasonably be called a top-pair defenceman.

I wouldn't be in favour of trading Edler for just picks or prospects who aren't NHL ready without also strengthening the defence somehow.

Yes, your points have a lot of merit, and if the Canucks just stopped there, there would be a void, as you have said, but with other contracts moving out (as I suspect), and the cap moving up, there will be enough extra cap to buy a good UFA, if you want to take that risk......in my Opinion, a slight over-payment wouldn't kill us if the return is an A-prospect Dman and a 1st +

It is subjective, and I agree with your post, I am just saying there may be another way, that is beneficial to us, but I am sure Benning is weighing these types of moves very carefully, and as "Joe" says....in Benning we trust

My personal favorite that I have seen is Chabot + 1st + Cowen for Edler (even if we have to add a little)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's clear that they would have to get a significant top pairing D in return for Edler. 

Best case scenario if Edler is moved is something like Edler + prospect for Hamonic. 

The bottom line though is that Hamhuis' days are numbered.  He is really the defenseman who needs to be replaced.  If they swap out Edler, they still have to replace Hamhuis so an Edler deal isn't really solving a problem.  They need to add a top 4 D to replace Hammer.  Hutton cannot be relied upon to be the #3.  He might get there but what if he has a sophomore slump?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎01‎/‎2016 at 9:29 AM, janisahockeynut said:

Everyone that objects to an Edler trade, says "he is a monster, he gobbles up large minutes, he is a #1/#2 dman, he is our leading point gettter on Defense" all vey correct, all of which leads me to my conclusion that we should trade him at this years TD

For the record, I feel the same way, you can't trade him! 

But here is the reasons why you do, Edler is at a 40 pt clip and in the top 30 in points, also in the top 10 TOI for dman, also playing against everyones top offensive players.............He will never be worth more because of this, and he is one bad hit away from reinjuring his bad back

Take our lessons from last year, when Vrbata was a 35 + goal scorer, or Hamhuis was still being looked at as an Olympian, not the broken down, injury prone player he is starting to look like........what was their values, and what are the now? 30 seems to be a  turning point in Canucks careers and other than the Sedins, of which Edler is not in the same ilk........it just seems to be the tipping point

Looking at the team, and where they are headed for over the next 2 to 3 years, it appears to me to be the ideal time to consider moving him........

Certainly a top 30 Dman this year............do you agree, and what is his value?

Without Edler and the Twins > The team would be like Carolina was the last couple years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Without Edler and the Twins > The team would be like Carolina was the last couple years.

I am not sure I totally agree with you Surfer

There are many differences

#1. We have a great many prospects, that look very promising........Carolina had nothing in the cupboard 2 years ago

#2. We are not going to jump up into the top end of the league anyways, despite if we do or don't trade Edler

#3. WE are spent to the cap ceiling team, Carolina is/was not...we can replace Edler via free agency

#4. We have Miller/Markstrom/Demko........2 years ago they had Ward............we have succession, they didn't

And, just in 2 years they have totally revamped their current and future defense......which is my point in all this, except, we are way ahead of them..........

Where we are now is 2 elite Dmen  short for our next run, trading a 30 year old, which will be 31 next year, is a good example of asset management........I am not saying he has to return picks, or prospects, but we should be able to get a 21 or 22 year old that has a pretty good chance of turning out to be an Edler caliber player and an A prospect or Pick, even if we have to add a little.

Example: Cowen, Chabot and a 2016-1st for Edler and a late 2nd/early 3rd

Sign Yandle for 3 years at 6 million

No Trade                                                        Trade

Edler/Tanev                                            Yandle/Tanev

Hamhuis/Bartkowski                               Hutton/Sbisa             

Hutton/Weber/Sbisa                               Cowen/Bartkoski/Hamhuis

Prospects: Pedan                                    Prospects: Pedan+Chabot+2016 1st-Ottawa

 

Now I am not saying that, that is a game winning defense but it is arguably better and with much more future

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...