aGENT Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said: Outside of experience, what does Edler possess that can't essentially be replaced? The NTC is a bummer for sure, but it makes one question Benning's motives regarding approaching Bieksa and Hamhuis before, but seemingly Edler is off-limits to that? True, but Edler was given opportunity to take on that role at a point in time, and that same opportunity will be afforded to another player, hopefully sooner than later. Where was that mandate yesterday? Ouch. I rue the day Tanev is traded, as having a player like that (injuries and all) is a great facet of a strong defense. -The ability to play first pair minutes and situations. -Expiring contracts, bigger pieces of the puzzle, age...there's any number of reasons if you care to look for them. -I don't see any other guys ready to fill his first pairing role as soon as next year. -The mandate, like the team, was apparently already on all-star break I like Tanev. Great 2B/3A D. But somebody has to go and he's got the most value, no NTC, concerning injury history and will also be exiting his prime by the time we're realistically contending again... We need to sell, I vote sell high on the most valuable asset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 18 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: Preferably Edler, as he is the closest to hitting the downslope of his career. He doesn't possess any trait or ability that can't be replaced by anyone of the younger defensemen in the corps. Size/Grit/Physical Play: Tryamkin and Gudbranson are far larger and more aggressive than him. Sbisa has demonstrated his dedication to being a wrecking ball as well, and is smaller than Edler, but brings physicality far more consistently. Puck-moving: Stecher/Tanev/Sbisa/Tryamkin/eventually Juolevi bring offensive skills on par or better. Leadership: Gudbranson/Tanev are both equally effective, with Gudbranson possessing more natural "alpha" type characteristics and willingness to defend his teammates. Big minute munching: All of the players have demonstrated the ability to log big minutes. Edler still has worth in a trade, that will steadily start declining, and keeping him on the team is essentially a practice in redundancy. Benning has shown other defensemen (Bieksa and Garrison) respect by trading them to teams that give them a greater chance to get a Cup, and I can see Benning offering that same kindness to Edler. I won't be surprised to see Edler to to Tampa. I think it makes sense for both clubs - he'd give them a needed push on their blueline, he wouldn't have to play #1 type minutes with Hedman there - Tampa is missing an ingredient and imo Edler would give them a pretty solid 1-2-3 of Hedman, Edler and Stralman. They moved Nesterov which may be an indication that they're poised to add - and a RDPMD could be a high possibility - but would also come at considerably more cost than Edler imo. The Canucks without Edler - probably don't stand as good a chance to make the playoffs - but that's a risk I personally would be willing to take. Proposed it elsewhere, but I think an Edler for Killorn, 2nd deal could make sense for both sides for a number of reasons - suits both teams' needs, lines them both up to come out the other side of expansion with bettter balance, cap hits are close, value imo is fair and takes away from both teams strengths to add to their shortages. Does Edler waive for Tampa? I don't know but I think it's possible, particularly if he stands to be exposed in the expanson draft, which isn't out of the question imo at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockhart Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 I doubt if management knew how Tryamkin was going to step up they'd still make this trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 5 minutes ago, Lockhart said: I doubt if management knew how Tryamkin was going to step up they'd still make this trade. Still would have IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 20 minutes ago, J.R. said: Still would have IMO. And I still would have that deal too. The more players like Tryamkin and Gudbranson, the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Just now, Pears said: And I still would have that deal too. The more players like Tryamkin and Gudbranson, the better. Well, I wouldn't want a team full of them... You need a mix But yeah, I'd do that trade again any day. Gudbranson is being criminally underrated by a lot of fans based on tough circumstances/lack of context. He'll be worth his weight in gold moving forward and has not scratched the surface of his true value yet. Moving him now would be completely reactionary and short sighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 29 minutes ago, Lockhart said: I doubt if management knew how Tryamkin was going to step up they'd still make this trade. I doubt management doubted that Tryamkin would step up. Tryamkin is expansion exempt in any event so there's no reason the team can't retain both. They also play opposite sides - Gudbranson brings a huge RHD presence that can be paired with Hutton - leaving Tryamkin to play with Stecher, Subban or whomever - and a pairing of Sbisa/Edler and Tanev. Sure, they can move a LHD to the right side, but why would they when they have the luxury of options. The move makes sense regardless imo - and with Juolevi, imo the question becomes whether the team moves Edler or Sbisa - I personally would lean towards the former. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 9 minutes ago, oldnews said: I doubt management doubted that Tryamkin would step up. Tryamkin is expansion exempt in any event so there's no reason the team can't retain both. They also play opposite sides - Gudbranson brings a huge RHD presence that can be paired with Hutton - leaving Tryamkin to play with Stecher, Subban or whomever - and a pairing of Sbisa/Edler and Tanev. Sure, they can move a LHD to the right side, but why would they when they have the luxury of options. The move makes sense regardless imo - and with Juolevi, imo the question becomes whether the team moves Edler or Sbisa - I personally would lean towards the former. I would too. I know Benning said he won't ask vets with NTCs to waive but I don't Edler in our future plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 1 hour ago, oldnews said: Edler for Killorn, 2nd deal could make sense for both sides for a number of reasons And then expose killorn in the draft? 4.5 million for 6 more seasons for a 15 goal, 40 point grinder? Pass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 1 hour ago, J.R. said: -The ability to play first pair minutes and situations. In his absence during injury, everyone stepped up admirably. That trend can continue. 1 hour ago, J.R. said: -Expiring contracts, bigger pieces of the puzzle, age...there's any number of reasons if you care to look for them. Yes, yes J.R......I care. 1 hour ago, J.R. said: -I don't see any other guys ready to fill his first pairing role as soon as next year. No? I see a few that, once again, in his absence due to injury, performed well. I think Willie deployed everyone more evenly in that time, essentially having numerous 2nd and 3rd pairings. 1 hour ago, J.R. said: -The mandate, like the team, was apparently already on all-star break Slightly! 1 hour ago, J.R. said: I like Tanev. Great 2B/3A D. But somebody has to go and he's got the most value, no NTC, concerning injury history and will also be exiting his prime by the time we're realistically contending again... We need to sell, I vote sell high on the most valuable asset. The perfect storm is set up for Tanev's departure, no doubt. It all remains to be seen. I trust that Benning will make the most out of whatever move happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 7 minutes ago, coryberg said: And then expose killorn in the draft? 4.5 million for 6 more seasons for a 15 goal, 40 point grinder? Pass LOL. 40pt players aren't "grinders" in today's NHL. And wadr, I'd think a line of Killorn, Horvat, Baertschi produces fairly well - Baertschi and Horvat imo are a slight upgrade on Killorn's linemates - JT Brown and Johnson. A 'grinder' who has scored 31 points in 43 playoff games the past two seasons. Who needs it? What this does is protect Sbisa - and leaves it between Baertchi, Granlund and Killorn as to who is most likely taken in expansion. If it's Killorn - oh well - you have to lose someone - and this effectively enables you to keep both Granlund and Baertschi - and Sbisa - and add a 2nd round pick in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 1 hour ago, oldnews said: I won't be surprised to see Edler to to Tampa. Would be a good landing spot for him, as previous Canucks defensemen have greased those track already. 1 hour ago, oldnews said: I think it makes sense for both clubs - he'd give them a needed push on their blueline, he wouldn't have to play #1 type minutes with Hedman there - Tampa is missing an ingredient and imo Edler would give them a pretty solid 1-2-3 of Hedman, Edler and Stralman. They moved Nesterov which may be an indication that they're poised to add - and a RDPMD could be a high possibility - but would also come at considerably more cost than Edler imo. The Canucks without Edler - probably don't stand as good a chance to make the playoffs - but that's a risk I personally would be willing to take. Same. I'm of the mind that rebuilding has already begun quite healthily on the back end, and moving Edler, while it would take away a lot of accumulated experience from the defense, these are the things that teams in transition do. 1 hour ago, oldnews said: Proposed it elsewhere, but I think an Edler for Killorn, 2nd deal could make sense for both sides for a number of reasons - suits both teams' needs, lines them both up to come out the other side of expansion with bettter balance, cap hits are close, value imo is fair and takes away from both teams strengths to add to their shortages. Not a huge Killorn fan, to be honest. What do you see in him that you think the Canucks need? 1 hour ago, oldnews said: Does Edler waive for Tampa? I don't know but I think it's possible, particularly if he stands to be exposed in the expanson draft, which isn't out of the question imo at this point. You think that Benning would expose him? Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 6 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: No? I see a few that, once again, in his absence due to injury, performed well. I think Willie deployed everyone more evenly in that time, essentially having numerous 2nd and 3rd pairings. Precisely the underlined. And in an injury/temporary situation, that can work for a while. It's a testament to how far Benning has brought our D. But you're never going to convince me that having, even a 'borderline' first pair, is not superior to a bunch of 2nd/3rd pairs. Not as the 'permanent' game plan heading in to a season. That's something you work around, not something you aim for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, J.R. said: Precisely the underlined. Cool. Here's some bolded text. 3 minutes ago, J.R. said: And in an injury/temporary situation, that can work for a while. It's a testament to how far Benning has brought our D. Indeed. However I do think that both Stecher and Tryamkin have top pairing potential, and based on how much their game has improved in half a season, I don't think that it will be too long before they get the chance to prove it. 3 minutes ago, J.R. said: But you're never going to convince me that having, even a 'borderline' first pair, is not superior to a bunch of 2nd/3rd pairs. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. It's not always about you.... And a borderline 1st pairing is a strong second pairing. Much like a good cigar is a smoke. 3 minutes ago, J.R. said: Not as the 'permanent' game plan heading in to a season. That's something you work around, not something you aim for. Yes...correct. Where was it stated that it should be "the gameplan" going forward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said: Cool. Here's some bolded text. Indeed. However I do think that both Stecher and Tryamkin have top pairing potential, and based on how much their game has improved in half a season, I don't think that it will be too long before they get the chance to prove it. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. It's not always about you.... And a borderline 1st pairing is a strong second pairing. Much like a good cigar is a smoke. Yes...correct. Where was it stated that it should be "the gameplan" going forward? Potential. I doubt they're there next year (not without a first pair vet to pair with) and I don't think it's fair to them or would be smart management to assume so. Trading Edler would inherently make it the game plan. We'd end up with 3 good 2nd'ish pairs. Bad game plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 21 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: Would be a good landing spot for him, as previous Canucks defensemen have greased those track already. Same. I'm of the mind that rebuilding has already begun quite healthily on the back end, and moving Edler, while it would take away a lot of accumulated experience from the defense, these are the things that teams in transition do. Not a huge Killorn fan, to be honest. What do you see in him that you think the Canucks need? You think that Benning would expose him? Interesting. I see a guy scoring 40 points in a middle six role. Good combination of size, reasonable speed, grit/edge nasty hard areas player, good two way player - the kind of guy I think the team has wanted - a potential 20 goal scorer who adds a bit of weight/edge to the forward group. Has stepped up quite a bit in the playoffs - playoff type of game, something this group doesn't have a lot of. I'm surprised folks aren't too keen on this addition tbh. I also think a 2nd is a more than reasonable top up, and if anything, they may get a late pick in addition. I also like the fact he'd bring a 4th LW - two of whom could be protected (beyond Daniel) - the team would come through expansion likely losing a LW but retaining three top 9 in the process, whereas currently, if it deals a D without that addition, stand to lose Baer or Granlund - and as much as I've liked Baertschi's improvement, I'm not sure I like him more than Granlund longer term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tower102 Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 If we trade Edler it is not going to be for someone that can be taken in the draft, it will be for a pick or an exempt player. My ideal is to package Edler and Hansen for the best young draft exempt prospect and or high draft picks. Then we don't lose much of value for nothing in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, oldnews said: I see a guy scoring 40 points in a middle six role. Good combination of size, reasonable speed, grit/edge nasty hard areas player, good two way player - the kind of guy I think the team has wanted - a potential 20 goal scorer who adds a bit of weight/edge to the forward group. Has stepped up quite a bit in the playoffs - playoff type of game, something this group doesn't have a lot of. I'm surprised folks aren't too keen on this addition tbh. I also think a 2nd is a more than reasonable top up, and if anything, they may get a late pick in addition. I also like the fact he'd bring a 4th LW - two of whom could be protected (beyond Daniel) - the team would come through expansion likely losing a LW but retaining three top 9 in the process. Fair enough. Thorough as always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, Tower102 said: If we trade Edler it is not going to be for someone that can be taken in the draft, it will be for a pick or an exempt player. My ideal is to package Edler and Hansen for the best young draft exempt prospect and or high draft picks. Then we don't lose much of value for nothing in the draft. Good luck trading players that need to be protected in expansion for exempt ones - and getting market value for them in the process - as well as finding a team that can take that much cap without sending any back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Edler will be moved in due time but not until our young LHD players have at least another year of development. Tanev is the first to go. He has the most value, he's still fairly young, he doesn't have a NTC and is on a good contract. As good as Sbisa has improved this year, there's no way i'm giving him first pairing minutes yet and neither Hutton or Tryamkin should have that kind of pressure on them yet. Edler Stecher Sbisa Guddy Hutton Tryamkin is much better than Sbisa tanev Tryamkin Stecher Hutton Guddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.