thejazz97 Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Do we trade Alex Edler? I'd imagine a potential deal could look like this: COL trades: Gabriel Landeskog, equalizing pick if necessary. VAN trades: Brendan Gaunce, Luca Sbisa, Alex Edler, equalizing pick if necessary. The new lineup is: Henrik Sedin - Daniel Sedin - Loui Eriksson Gabriel Landeskog - Bo Horvat- Jannik Hansen Sven Baertschi - Brandon Sutter - Anton Rodin Emerson Etem - Markus Granlund - Alex Burrows Derek Dorsett (And here's where it gets interesting) Ben Hutton - Erik Gudbranson Nikita Tryamkin - Chris Tanev Olli Juolevi - Philip Larsen Andrey Pedan/Alex Biega Jacob Markstrom Ryan Miller Explanation for defense: Hutton and Gudbranson are the ideal O/D / L/R mashup with the current Canucks roster, and Hutton (albeit with a small sample size) showed he can play top minutes and look normal doing it. Tanev, who is now the best defenseman on the team, is relegated to 2nd pairing duties as he's the best option for Tryamkin to play with. Time would be split pretty evenly between the top 3/4 D. Juolevi is the reason this all happens in the first place, and with the only knock on him being his size, he and Larsen can be "sheltered" to start the season. I mean, the stars would have to line up for this to happen, but it's interesting to think about nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Jay 22 Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 I say no. For now. And it's because of the defensive state if/when Edler leaves at the moment. -Juolevi, even if he impresses, is still a rookie and on a very vulnerable defensive unit already to begin with. Rookie mistakes should be expected alongside the brilliance he flashes. -Tryamkin/Larsen are massive question marks at best right now. -Hutton will be expected to take more of a responsible role on the D unit, and not be as sheltered as he was earlier. He also showed signs of serious fatigue/mental lapses towards the end of the year, so sophomore mistakes should be expected. In short, the only guy I really trust back there on your proposed D corp is Tanev, and to a much lesser extent, Gudbranson. In my not so expert opinion, if that defense performs to those players' expectations, it's still a bottom 10 D corp at best. And if there are any major hiccups with 1 or 2 of those question marks I laid out, then we are picking in the Top 3 next year for sure. It is just too tough to shelter an entire pairing for the course of a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 1. Edler's NTC 2. Even if Olli does so, isn't it more damaging to bring him up early? I am much more of a proponent of letting him have another year in junior then a year in the AHL before bringing him in. We've a crowded blue line for LHD as is, and by trading what is arguably one of our top D to allow a child to slot in for him is setting him and this team up for failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted September 13, 2016 Author Share Posted September 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, Blue Jay 22 said: I say no. For now. And it's because of the defensive state if/when Edler leaves at the moment. -Juolevi, even if he impresses, is still a rookie and on a very vulnerable defensive unit already to begin with. Rookie mistakes should be expected alongside the brilliance he flashes. -Tryamkin/Larsen are massive question marks at best right now. -Hutton will be expected to take more of a responsible role on the D unit, and not be as sheltered as he was earlier. He also showed signs of serious fatigue/mental lapses towards the end of the year, so sophomore mistakes should be expected. In short, the only guy I really trust back there on your proposed D corp is Tanev, and to a much lesser extent, Gudbranson. In my not so expert opinion, if that defense performs to those players' expectations, it's still a bottom 10 D corp at best. And if there are any major hiccups with 1 or 2 of those question marks I laid out, then we are picking in the Top 3 next year for sure. It is just too tough to shelter an entire pairing for the course of a season. 2 minutes ago, Warhippy said: 1. Edler's NTC 2. Even if Olli does so, isn't it more damaging to bring him up early? I am much more of a proponent of letting him have another year in junior then a year in the AHL before bringing him in. We've a crowded blue line for LHD as is, and by trading what is arguably one of our top D to allow a child to slot in for him is setting him and this team up for failure. You guys aren't wrong. Like I said, the stars would have to line up - everyone would have to play lights out for this to happen, especially with Edler's NTC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 I think that if we can get a reasonable return for Edler, we trade him anyway - IF we can at least somewhat shore up the scoring elsewhere on the back end. It isn't like he's going to get any better, so his worth is as high as it ever will be. If it helps get us the elite top six talent this team badly needs, I'd consider it. I'm just not sure I'd like to see what else would realistically be required to make such a deal happen for a guy like him. The package you put together is nowhere close. The real question is where his 35 (?) points are going to come from if he leaves. We just got ourselves a decent defense; I'd hate to see it fail because we put too much pressure on the guys to make up that scoring. Throwing in Juolevi too quickly is a mistake as well, imo. He's still really young, and the last thing we need right now is to shatter his confidence. We will be relying on him soon enough. I'd really just prefer to wait to see who else might step up on the defense to contribute to our scoring to determine if we could afford to lose Edler or not. At least I see his skillset being replaceable compared to what we have in Tanev... who I would want to see an overpayment for if we did, in fact, trade him for another player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Jay 22 Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Tbh, if I'm Colorado, I'm asking for a Tanev package anyway, not Edler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin's Dog Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Like every proposal of course the Stars have to line up! Great proposal but is it enough? While I like the idea of Landeskog as a Canuck, a lot, i don't think your offer has enough because of the age of the player involved as well as cap: I think you have about 9.5m going to Colorado and only Landeskog's salary coming back 5.75m ~ish. Which puts Colorado over the cap I believe. I think Gaunce, Hutton and a first round pick maybe gets them listening, but I bet they come back also asking for one of Horvat or Virtanen. And why wouldn't they? They'd be giving up their first line winger. I wouldn't do the trade if they ask for either Virtanen or Horvat because I think that is too much to give up with Hutton and a first even for a player like Landeskog. It would be great if a deal that made sense for the Canuck's materialized! Just my 2 cents! Love the proposal! Edit: Also even if Juolevi looks awesome in training camp/preseason I think players who are teenagers and also of slighter build can be at risk even if they have the speed, IQ and skill. I've heard people wonder if Nugent-Hopkins as great as he is, is not as high as he could be because of injuries sustained just by hits from those big western conference forwards. Just something I've heard. I would love to see Juolevi this year but would the risk be too much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 I think this can be considered if Subban surprises as well. I'd be hesitant to trade Edler just because of the experience and calmness he brings to the d-corp as a whole. That said, one of the depth guys surprising us would cause a bit of a logjam in the current setup for the defense, so I could see the reason for a trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 But does Colorado do this deal? They have Zadorov, Gelinas, Beacuhemin and the young Bigras on the left side? I could see how a top 4 D like Edler would help but don’t see how a Sbisa would make any sense to the Av’s, I also don’t realistically see them moving on from Landeskog, it’s not like they have an abundance of left wingers, that allows them to move from a position of strength. Realistically if Av’s were going to move one of their talented players, I’d say it would be Duchene. Maybe Edler + Sutter for a Duchene package. That helps the Av’s out on the LHD top 4 and strong 2 way center to play behind MacKinnon. Sutter has a R handed shot which avs are really low on. and Av’s do have Jost in their system as well, hopefully he can someday replace the skill set Duchene brought. This is probably more of a Christmas time decision based on how Hutton, Tryamkin, Bo, and Juolevi look a few months into the season and where both teams are sitting in standings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 I'd personally pass on Duchene if Landeskog is not an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 The ideal time to trade Edler would be immediately after the expansion draft. We only have 3 D-men that are worth keeping that need to be protected (Edler, Tanev, and Gudbranson). However, there are a lot of teams that need to win in the next few years, but are going to lose a good 2nd pairing D-man in the draft, and will be eager to add an affordable top-4 option like Edler. For instance, Ahaheim gave Bieksa a NMC, so they have to protect him. So even if they go the 8 skater route and protect 4 D-men, barring another trade they will have to expose Despres or Fowler. Islanders spent years finally building a strong blueline, but one of Leddy, De Haan, or Pulock will have to be exposed, and whoever is will likely be taken. Minny will probably lose one of Dumba, Scandella, or Brodin. And so on... For the same reason, Edler's trade value right now would be limited, as to any decent team he'd just be another D-man they need to protect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Can't trade Sbisa & Edler together. At least 1 exp'd LHD better be in the return. Don't rush Juolevi. D in the west, ain't for fresh teens. Patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 anything can happen but I do not see us trading away two D men but you never do know with trades.I like to see a trade happen like this,but we will need a D for the expansion draft.I could see Edler going but it would be to a team he picks and most that he might go play for would not give up what we need! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Tonnes of potential on D now. I think Stecher could really surprise, and there was an article yesterday calling Troy the 'next Ben Hutton', from Hutton himself. Juolevi is no slouch either, and he has been saying since he was drafted that he wants to make the team. Pedan will be waiver eligible this year, so he should show up hungry. From the end of last season Tryamkin looks ready. Added to all this is the Euro-out clauses from both Tryamkin and Larsen. I'd say at this point maybe 4 defensemen are guaranteed spots in Gudbranson, Tanev, Edler, and Hutton. To a lesser extent Sbisa, but there's a tonne of competition even for the bottom pairing. I like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 A prospect performing well at camp is not good enough of indication of how he will be able to handle the full season, let alone handle it at the same level as a veteran defenceman. If Juolevi surprises, he will get 9 games to continue to surprise us. If say he puts up like 10 points in that 9 games and plays great defensively, then he will get more games (up to 40 games?) and then, we will know for sure what we have in Olli. Until then, trading a veteran defeceman like Edler is a sure way to finish dead last for a team challenged to score goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 10 minutes ago, khay said: A prospect performing well at camp is not good enough of indication of how he will be able to handle the full season, let alone handle it at the same level as a veteran defenceman. If Juolevi surprises, he will get 9 games to continue to surprise us. If say he puts up like 10 points in that 9 games and plays great defensively, then he will get more games (up to 40 games?) and then, we will know for sure what we have in Olli. Until then, trading a veteran defeceman like Edler is a sure way to finish dead last for a team challenged to score goals. How about trading Tanev then, and keeping Edler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 If Olli impresses in camp and I bet he will, he's too small. It's just too risky to expose your prize D prospect in the big, bad, wild west. Give the kid some time, we have plenty of depth right now. Also, given what a hot mess our D was last year, I'd like to see them playing strong and confident D in the dying minutes of the third, instead of crapping the bed like they did all last season, before anyone gets moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 1 minute ago, luckylager said: If Olli impresses in camp and I bet he will, he's too small. It's just too risky to expose your prize D prospect in the big, bad, wild west. Give the kid some time, we have plenty of depth right now. Also, given what a hot mess our D was last year, I'd like to see them playing strong and confident D in the dying minutes of the third, instead of crapping the bed like they did all last season, before anyone gets moved. kid needs to win world juniors and another memmorial this yr beef up play larger minutes 25-27 a game in ohl come in next yr and not miss a beat into nhl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 2 minutes ago, canuktravella said: kid needs to win world juniors and another memmorial this yr beef up play larger minutes 25-27 a game in ohl come in next yr and not miss a beat into nhl Even year might be a stretch. His shoulders aren't very thick, as another poster mentioned about RNH, kids shoulders just couldn't handle the big league hits and it screwed up his development. Olli should be seeing a lot more contact than Princess Nugent-Hopkins... So I agree and I hope so too. If he could put on 15-20Lbs of pure muscle.. maybe next year. There's always the Hutton argument too, but he's definitely more built up top than young Olli. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putgolzin Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 2 hours ago, Calvin's Dog said: I think Gaunce, Hutton and a first round pick maybe gets them listening, This is how I approach it. Why do we always try to trade Edler (who we can't because of his NTC) and then default to Tanev? Why don't we add Hutton into the proposals? No NTC and still a LHD where we have a bit more depth. 47 minutes ago, Alflives said: How about trading Tanev then, and keeping Edler? Cause we're thin on the right already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.