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

Alexander Edler | #23 | D


-SN-
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Why would you let some posters opinions on the situation shape yours? I'd suggest basing it off of what he does this offseason. Or whatever you feel, but not on someone else's opinion. Just my opinion.....that you don't have to take.

Because it seems like the more I talk to them about it the more I see how bad it really is now :lol:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2021 at 2:29 PM, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Tbh I liked how much Schenn protected Hughes more, but yes Tanev helped Hughes because he was a defensive minded first kind of guy, and that's exactly what Hughes needs as a partner, basically you need to find a Willie Mitchell somewhere for Hughes, but if guys like Myers and Edler are jumping up into the rush paired up with Hughes well that's an automatic fail, but if Edler is still on this team well that's an automatic fail again :lol:

 

This is utter nonsense.

Edler and Hughes don't play together - ever - period.

No wonder your takes are so bad - you don't even seem to have a concept of reality - or what the pairings look like.

Btw - Edler scored 33 points in 59 games one year ago - but evidently the guy shouldn't be caught on the other side of the red line. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Actually it does, because if you let the guy walk the year before and then the following year you trade assets to just get him again, you're a horrible GM if you're doing that :picard:

 

The fact that Benning didn't get anything for Tanev or especially Markstrom after committing all those years to him and turning him into #1 waste all those years to get absolutely nothing back, is actually a joke tbh.

facepalm yourself.

 

were you expecting them to rent these two guys right before heading into the playoffs.

get real.

not a single GM in the NHL would trade two of their most critical players at the deadline in those circumstance.

the joke is your expectation that they would

  • Hydration 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

 

It's effectively meaningless if you're a contender, but if you not and your rebuilding in a way, you should be trying to stock the cupboards as much as possible and not let guys walk and get nothing, that poor management. 

Tanev had an 8 team NTC

Markstrom didn't have any clauses.

Can you name any team in NHL history that traded their, then #1 goalie just before going into the play offs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

It's effectively meaningless if you're a contender, but if you not and your rebuilding in a way, you should be trying to stock the cupboards as much as possible and not let guys walk and get nothing, that poor management. 

Doesn't matter if you're a contender or not, money is money in the end. We didn't have the money for Tanev. Simple as that.

 

Unless if you somehow think being a contender completely coincides with your cap situation (which is clearly does not).

 

I get wanting to keep Tanev, but it's not as simple as just resigning him when you're up against the cap like we have been. Some blame Benning's earlier contracts for that which I think is legitimate although I'm still not anti-Benning despite that.

Edited by The Lock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Doesn't matter if you're a contender or not, money is money in the end. We didn't have the money for Tanev. Simple as that.

 

Unless if you somehow think being a contender completely coincides with your cap situation (which is clearly does not).

 

I get wanting to keep Tanev, but it's not as simple as just resigning him when you're up against the cap like we have been. Some blame Benning's earlier contracts for that which I think is legitimate although I'm still not anti-Benning despite that.

Being a consistent contender is about having key players on good contracts IMO anyone can contend any years with players on up years.

 

Tampa honestly has the consistent key contracts and than they cheated on top of that….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dats hockey said:

Being a consistent contender is about having key players on good contracts IMO anyone can contend any years with players on up years.

 

Tampa honestly has the consistent key contracts and than they cheated on top of that….

Yeah but my original comment was in reply to the notion of "letting a player go for nothing" being meaningless and how every player costs something; thus, letting a player go frees up cap space, which isn't nothing.

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, oldnews said:

facepalm yourself.

 

were you expecting them to rent these two guys right before heading into the playoffs.

get real.

not a single GM in the NHL would trade two of their most critical players at the deadline in those circumstance.

the joke is your expectation that they would

Again if your plan is to not be ready for 3 more years, why spend to the cap just to get the feet wet to then lose for 3 years after, and on top of it let guys walk for nothing to be bad for 3 more years, just ridiculous horrible management. 

  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Lock said:

Doesn't matter if you're a contender or not, money is money in the end. We didn't have the money for Tanev. Simple as that.

 

Unless if you somehow think being a contender completely coincides with your cap situation (which is clearly does not).

 

I get wanting to keep Tanev, but it's not as simple as just resigning him when you're up against the cap like we have been. Some blame Benning's earlier contracts for that which I think is legitimate although I'm still not anti-Benning despite that.

We don't have the money because of the poor management in place and clueless in the approach he's taking, which handcuffed himself because of his poor decisions from previous garbage contracts.

 

Tanev should still be a Canuck and Edler should of been gone 4 years ago, just horrible management. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

20 hours ago, gurn said:

Tanev had an 8 team NTC

Markstrom didn't have any clauses.

Can you name any team in NHL history that traded their, then #1 goalie just before going into the play offs?

Just before going into the playoffs... The trade deadline in 2020 was February and the playoffs didn't start until August.... You can't trade just before the playoffs start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

We don't have the money because of the poor management in place and clueless in the approach he's taking, which handcuffed himself because of his poor decisions from previous garbage contracts.

 

Tanev should still be a Canuck and Edler should of been gone 4 years ago, just horrible management. 

Like I've said, I can see where the frustration comes in. I'm not anti-Benning though at this point as I haven't really seen anything lately that's made me question things so I guess I'm hopeful that he's learned. I  guess I'm more on the fence than anything.

 

It still goes to show though that Tanev didn't go for nothing, partially caused by a series of contracts that proved to be too expensive in the end. Although, perhaps it was more the term than anything as ideally if those contracts were over at this point they wouldn't even be a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

 

Just before going into the playoffs... The trade deadline in 2020 was February and the playoffs didn't start until August.... You can't trade just before the playoffs start.

Fine, name a team that traded off their number one goalie just prior to the trade deadline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, gurn said:

Fine, name a team that traded off their number one goalie just prior to the trade deadline.

Patrick Roy...

 

But no I understand it's not something you normally do, I get it I'm definitely ranting a bit, but at the same time maybe Benning should of tried to get their feet wet the year before then, so he could of moved those guys the following year, seems like the year he chose to go all in was the wrong year because he had to keep those guys and couldn't move them, so again poor management. 

Edited by ChuckNORRIS4Cup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Like I've said, I can see where the frustration comes in. I'm not anti-Benning though at this point as I haven't really seen anything lately that's made me question things so I guess I'm hopeful that he's learned. I  guess I'm more on the fence than anything.

 

It still goes to show though that Tanev didn't go for nothing, partially caused by a series of contracts that proved to be too expensive in the end. Although, perhaps it was more the term than anything as ideally if those contracts were over at this point they wouldn't even be a problem.

His drafting has helped keep some people at ease with him, but I even question some of those now tbh, I feel they're just undersized a bit, obviously time will tell, but his player acquisitions have been very bad over the years, and the Toffoli thing was kind of the nail in the caufin imo, but I guess Benning is like a cat and gets 9 lives here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

His drafting has helped keep some people at ease with him, but I even question some of those now tbh, I feel they're just undersized a bit, obviously time will tell, but his player acquisitions have been very bad over the years, and the Toffoli thing was kind of the nail in the caufin imo, but I guess Benning is like a cat and gets 9 lives here.

The way I see it though, it's easy to have a hyper-focus on the team you love. You see this with fans of other teams as well where we would look at them and it might not seem as big of a deal.

 

I've heard so many fans of other teams at this point state how they feel our future looks bright given our drafting, so is nit-picking every little detail at that point worth it? Personally, I just don't have the time nor the energy to worry about every little detail that's gone on. It doesn't bring anyone any value. It's diminishing returns.

Edited by The Lock
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be a nice story if he ended his career here, but if he’s not willing to take a significant reduction in salary, you have to walk away if you are the Canucks. I’d be a bit torn if he left, but I think it might mean that this management is finally learning to become a bit more disciplined.

 

And perhaps it’s not completely due to the fact that Edlers camp feels like they are being lowballed. Maybe he wants a chance to win. Never thought he had this sort of mercenary personality, but good for Alex if this is what he wants.

 

Could also simply be a negotiation tactic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...