[Speculation] Alex Edler could get traded because of the expansion draft

[lmm]

2 hours ago, Tower102 said:

All of this talk about Dmen not getting full value makes me want to trade for a bunch of teams 4th defender (saves them from being selected for nothing in the draft), we only lose 1 guy anyways in the draft, then trade them back after the draft when their value returns to normal (possibly even higher as teams are in more of a need for a number 4 after losing theirs. Buy low, sell high. Wall street style asset management.

 

Ps. I know this is unrealistic, but is a fun thought and would fun to see happen. 

 

Pps. Still more realistic than a lot of CDC proposals. 

I was thinking the same thing.

Remember the Lidster-Van Beesy deal?

the Canucks  exposed 3 G and lost 1. Effectively ensuring the loss of Lidster and no other.

[elvis15]

17 hours ago, TDemko16 said:

ALEX EDLER COULD NOT GET TRADED BECAUSE OF THE EXPANSION DRAFT

FTFY. With teams already having players to protect, I'm not sure many are looking to add another to the mix and potentially lose a younger, up and coming player.

[D-Money]

51 minutes ago, lmm said:

Your logic and mine is totally backwards.

Last week I looked at Washington, this week I looked at Minnisota.

Wash = 10F and 8D protected/exposed

Minni = 12 F and 7D

Those teams will lose a good player in the ex-draft.

It is interesting the lack of vision put forth on this site.

There are 10 teams with a ligitimate shot at the Cup this year, most of them look like Minni or Wash. They will rent players if they think it will put them over the top. 

Nobody expected the Leddy/ Boychuk trades. Then they happened and CDC is all, "We can do that too!" Then Terravanen gets traded, same response.

The Expansion draft is an opportunity for a smart GM, both at the top and the bottom of the food chain. Time will tell if Jim has the stones to pull off a smart move for a win during expansion.

Washington or Minni could use an  Edler in the 5 hole for the playoffs then not get stuck with his cap hit next year. Or he replaces the player lost to expansion.  Its like rentals with term that does not come back to bite.

I see nothing but opportunity for a smart GM.

Almost everybody expected Leddy and Boychuk were going to be traded. But Snow probably landed them both because he offered more than other GMs, who were all likely trying to get a better deal knowing that Chicago and Boston were both over a barrel. They both turned out to be better players than expected - particularly Leddy, whose stock has skyrocketed since the move.

 

You say "smart GM" as if most of them aren't. The thing is, they don't get to that position unless they are much "smarter" than you or I. But the thing is, all of them are, so there will still be a scale as to who is smarter.

 

[lmm]

9 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Almost everybody expected Leddy and Boychuk were going to be traded. But Snow probably landed them both because he offered more than other GMs, who were all likely trying to get a better deal knowing that Chicago and Boston were both over a barrel. They both turned out to be better players than expected - particularly Leddy, whose stock has skyrocketed since the move.

 

You say "smart GM" as if most of them aren't. The thing is, they don't get to that position unless they are much "smarter" than you or I. But the thing is, all of them are, so there will still be a scale as to who is smarter.

 

 

 

 

 

Not so.

I say smart GM because I think that some very interesting deals will come of this.

Will Jim be in the mix? Time will tell.

You are free to think a Hockey GM, or all Hockey GMs are smarter than you if you like, but I look at it as them having industry specific training and opportunities based on most of them being former players. 

Some GMs are very smart, some not so much. I think what the cap has shown is that there are not 31 equal GMs in the league. Even after levelling the playing field, the smart GMs still end out on top.

[DarthMelvin]

2 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

Lol care to elaborate?

Ugh... I can't sorry but that post was so bad. How can you pool those players in with the likes of Edler... I just can't see why you would it's shameful. UNLESS you can explain to me why you would!?

[canuck73_3]

50 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

FTFY. With teams already having players to protect, I'm not sure many are looking to add another to the mix and potentially lose a younger, up and coming player.

Edler still has some trade value JB just has to decide if return plus the extra player we can protect is worth the hit on Edler's trade value is worth it. 

[elvis15]

29 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Edler still has some trade value JB just has to decide if return plus the extra player we can protect is worth the hit on Edler's trade value is worth it. 

It's not about his trade value, it's about how many teams are very cautious with trades that would give them another player to protect and leave someone else exposed. Any options of teams that could be interested are definitely limited by this unique situation where in another year it might not be hard to move him.

[canuck73_3]

1 minute ago, elvis15 said:

It's not about his trade value, it's about how many teams are very cautious with trades that would give them another player to protect and leave someone else exposed. Any options of teams that could be interested are definitely limited by this unique situation where in another year it might not be hard to move him.

He's still moveable that's why I alluded to his value drop, they may want to push for a run this season but only give up 2/3rds the value they'd normally give up. 

[tybarber]

18 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

It's not about his trade value, it's about how many teams are very cautious with trades that would give them another player to protect and leave someone else exposed. Any options of teams that could be interested are definitely limited by this unique situation where in another year it might not be hard to move him.

Just because they trade for him doesn't mean they have to protect him. An Edler trade would most likely be a "rental" scenario, just like teams do every deadline for players on expiring contracts. 

Which, basically negates the "leverage" that other posters seem to think Benning has, which is to tell Edler: "either waive your NTC or we won't protect you", which is a terribly unprofessional thing to do, imo. But since Edler will likely get traded to a contender, on a rental basis, to a team that already has a list of player to protect, as you pointed out, he'll likely end up being un-protected for Vegas anyways. 

Where it could get interesting, is that since he isn't a true rental, in the sense that his contract is not expiring, a team could trade for him at a "rental" price from the Canucks, and then after being eliminated from the playoffs or winning, they could trade him again at a higher price to any team that wants him for the remainder of his contract. That team would have the leverage to say "waive or we'll expose you", even though they were probably planning on not protecting him anyways, but at least this way Edler would have a say in what team he wants to play for. But again, that's pretty unprofessional and seems fairly unlikely to happen.

Moving on from that, I see a trade as a possibility to a contender, but like you were alluding to, don't be surprised if we don't get great value. Maybe a 2nd/3rd round pick and a B grade prospect if we're lucky. 

[stawns]

19 hours ago, TDemko16 said:

Source in the end it talks about Edler} http://www.thefourthperiod.com/columnists/pagnotta/dp170205.html

 

And for the Canucks, making the playoffs may actually be counterproductive. This team needs to retool -- ownership won't allow for a full rebuild -- and while they're starting to see their young studs make greater impacts on the roster, a few more changes could be made.

Vancouver's entertained calls on defenseman Alexander Edler for the last two seasons, and with the Canucks expected to protect more than four forwards in this summer's expansion draft, Edler may be exposed, as management may opt to keep blueliner Chris Tanev, Erik Gudbranson and Luca Sbisa safe. It would not be out of the realm of possibility if the Canucks test the market on him this month.

of course they are protecting more than 4 fwds, they get to protect 7 fwds and 3 d

[stawns]

4 hours ago, goblix said:

I agree with this mostly but I think they way our team is shaping up on defense, I see us moving Sbisa for w/e we can get for him which IMO will be decent return at the deadline.

He's playing pretty decently this year and has no NTC, has 1 year left and fullfills our need to move 1 of our players that we can't protect. To a playoff team he adds depth, a bit of grit and mobility. Definitely a better add than Polak + Spaling which got 2 2nds...

For expansion this gives the team flexibility for exposure, giving them the requirements on a player that has 1 year left until a UFA. If he gets claimed then he becomes a rental for that 1 year, if he doesn't it gives the team a bit more depth for a year.

 

I know people want to ship the high ticket flavor for high ticket value but Edler, Tanev, Guddy will be the blocks in place to keep a stable core for the rookies to inject and build upon. They will need more time to surpass and whilst time continues to age these players, I just see a harder sale for a team to make such a high valued trade AND need to protect the player they acquired.

tanev has no NTC until this summer and it's pretty clear that rigors of the NHL wear on tanev........injuries are going to be a constant with him throughout his career

[goblix]

33 minutes ago, stawns said:

tanev has no NTC until this summer and it's pretty clear that rigors of the NHL wear on tanev........injuries are going to be a constant with him throughout his career

Meh injuries happens to a lot of defensemen, it'd have to be a crazy deal for me to let go of Tanev, ala Hall-like, I don't want to see picks / prospects for him

Guy is good and he is young, I understand the need to push for offensive flare but while our current defensive prospects are looking good are not developed enough to take that amount of time or responsibility.

 

I'd rather build through the draft and hold on to players that will give the prospects under him time to flourish... pretty much like what Hamhuis / Edler / Bieksa did for Tanev himself. 

[lmm]

2 hours ago, elvis15 said:

It's not about his trade value, it's about how many teams are very cautious with trades that would give them another player to protect and leave someone else exposed. Any options of teams that could be interested are definitely limited by this unique situation where in another year it might not be hard to move him.

I think what you say is true for players with NMCs.

Most Canucks fans would be fine trading or exposing LE but he has a NMC so any team picking him up would lose a protection spot. So he won't move and the Canucks will be forced to use one on him.

Edler on the other hand would be a good pick up for a Cup run and then could be dangled possibly being picked before another player (like the Sbisa, Granny or Baertchi of another team).

[goblix]

2 minutes ago, lmm said:

I think what you say is true for players with NMCs.

Most Canucks fans would be fine trading or exposing LE but he has a NMC so any team picking him up would lose a protection spot. So he won't move and the Canucks will be forced to use one on him.

Edler on the other hand would be a good pick up for a Cup run and then could be dangled possibly being picked before another player (like the Sbisa, Granny or Baertchi of another team).

You can't put Edler in the same breath has granny, sbisa and baertschi...

Edler isn't chop liver. No one is going to spend the assets to get Edler and let him get exposed couple months later.

 

most fans also have the attention spans of 10 minutes. LE, 1 year doesn't make the contract a bust. Probably the same people that have given up on virtanen and are so impatient that they whine about drafting juolevi over tkatchuk.

 

silly silly. (Not directed at you directly sorry, soft topic for me) 

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

6 hours ago, oldnews said:

Edler to Tampa for Killorn, 2nd.

I am astounded by this.  There is no way Killorn is on the move.  Yes, Stevie likes an old school D, but I think this is out to lunch.  Killorn's probably gonna win a Selke and he's not expensive.  They'd probably sooner move Johnson.

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

6 hours ago, J.R. said:

Glad you read my post...

 

 

It might not make it to hard to move him, if he wants out.

[samurai]

Edler is going to be traded to Tampa.  

[CAkNUCKle sandwich]

22 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

only NMC are forced to be protected not NTC.

Factz

[Phil_314]

20 hours ago, billabong said:

That move would put Hutton/tryamkin/sbisa as our go-to left side D for the shutdown pair that's asking a lot from either of them.

edler isn't perfect but he's a vet that takes on a lot of the heavy lifting on D

BUT if the return is something you can't ignore than bye bye Eddie 

Really tough call, Tree and especially Pizza have been doing well this season, while Hutton does still have potential.  Questions might be what kind of return J.B. can actually get for Eddie.  League-wide it seems like people still regard him as a top-pair D (not the #1 but a capable #2, and he does eat lots of minutes) so if teams will fork over prime assets then I'd say it'd be likely worth it.  

Secondly though, agreed that it's questionable as to whether Sbisa could keep his performance level so high without the talented buffer that has been Eddie who plays something crazy like 25 minutes a night.  If Alex is moved and the kids or Luca falter, it would be a long next season and people will be hating on management for dealing a capable top-pair D-man.  Then again, no one has a crystal ball that can predict the future so we can only see based on what management wants.  My bet would be that they keep Eddie though, he's been a key player on the blue-line for so long now.   

[WiDeN]

Complainer moment:

I hate reading posts that have pet names for the player in it.  It is especially bad when they are your own personal pet names rather than a commonly accepted one, like "Hank and Dank" for example.  I have silly names that I refer to them with at home in the comforts of my living room around people that would likely be familiar with most of those silly names after a couple games or so, but I wouldn't use them in a public forum cause that's kinda weird.

 

Now, I totally understand if you do that, and would continue to do that regardless of my opinion on the matter.  That's all good.  I just felt it had to be said.