oldnews Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 46 minutes ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said: 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. Not your best intervention WTWI - suggesting Killorn is going to win a Selke is straight up out to lunch. And he's a 4.45 million cap hit btw. Something tells me you're not sure what player we're talking about here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIC_CITY Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 5 hours ago, DarthMelvin said: 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!? Sure, no problem. Edler has been on the decline for about 5 years now. Had he been healthy all year, he'd be on pace to score 19 points over 82 games, which is a sharp decline from his already declining self. He is also making a good chunk of change ($5.0M) which could be used to sign a better defenseman in the offseason. You could also make the argument that we desperately need to trade a defenseman before we lose one for nothing in the expansion draft. Oh and in case you didn't notice, I'm not one of the people on here that thinks a team (Canucks) currently tied for 3rd worst in the NHL, is going to make the playoffs. So it's pretty obvious. Shameful? Hardly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 1 hour ago, WiDeN said: 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. This is where I suggest to someone: just chill. its all good. but I felt it had to be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 On 2/5/2017 at 7:44 PM, DeNiro said: He could also call their bluff. I doubt the Canucks would give him to Vegas for nothing. If a trade does go down it will happen in the offseason out of respect to Edler. Management has already said they won't ask players to waive. I agree he should not be asked,but again if a team calls and calls they may just ask him many times a GM says one thing then changes his mind, but to me I agree with what benning has said and he will not ask Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 1 hour ago, VIC_CITY said: He is also making a good chunk of change ($5.0M) which could be used to sign a better defenseman in the offseason. Signing a defenseman better than Edler in the off season, in the year 2017, will cost you $6m +. So no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, J.R. said: Signing a defenseman better than Edler in the off season, in the year 2017, will cost you $6m +. So no. I'd be fine with paying Alzner that over 2-3 years tbh. Maybe if we gave him a little more term we could get him at $5m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goblix Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 1 hour ago, VIC_CITY said: Sure, no problem. Edler has been on the decline for about 5 years now. Had he been healthy all year, he'd be on pace to score 19 points over 82 games, which is a sharp decline from his already declining self. He is also making a good chunk of change ($5.0M) which could be used to sign a better defenseman in the offseason. You could also make the argument that we desperately need to trade a defenseman before we lose one for nothing in the expansion draft. Oh and in case you didn't notice, I'm not one of the people on here that thinks a team (Canucks) currently tied for 3rd worst in the NHL, is going to make the playoffs. So it's pretty obvious. Shameful? Hardly. Well Edler has had a couple of decent offensive years but he's never really been that offensive juggernaut. Lets shoot down the numbers. 2012-2013 -- 0.48 PPG 2013-2014 -- 0.34 PPG 2014-2015 -- 0.41 PPG 2015-2016 -- 0.38 PPG 2016-2017 -- 0.23 PPG Keeping in mind that Edler plays against tough assignments, and kills penalties I'd be fine with him getting around 0.4 PPG which is pretty average overall but I think we all need to give up on Edler's offensive upside that we hoped for (if you haven't already). Is Edler on the decline, most likely, but the guy bases his points on assists and the lack of offensive aptitude of the team doesn't help his overall numbers, after all, this is a team game. Now as for trading Edler, this is way way too complicated of a trade for this season. What playoff team is going to look at Edler's 5m contract and will easily take that on for next year? What team will pay the Edler price and be forced to either expose or protect him? Take those 2 cases and now Edler has to be willing to waive his NTC clause... Nearly impossible if you ask me, this is not a deadline or a pre-expansion type of deal. So we still have 4 defensemen eligible for expansion, what should we do? Easy peasy... Trade Sbisa. I mean last 2 years everyone hated him anyways or does CDC forget that easily, or does CDC have the Edler blinders on right now? Sbisa has no NTC, is one year away from UFA and is much easier for a team to stomach in letting go to Vegas at expansion... Hell they may want Sbisa just for the exposure requirements to satisfy the requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Can't afford to keep Edler if they plan on giving Gudbranson 4.5 million. Somethings gotta give. Him or Tanev will be gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 On 2017-02-05 at 7:44 PM, DeNiro said: He could also call their bluff. I doubt the Canucks would give him to Vegas for nothing. If a trade does go down it will happen in the offseason out of respect to Edler. Management has already said they won't ask players to waive. If management gave me $5 to ask Edler if he'd waive, I'd give them $6 in change and do their dirty work. And who knows maybe he's asked for a trade rather than be an annual -20 guy while the nucks rebuild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 6 hours ago, canuck73_3 said: 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. 6 hours ago, tybarber said: 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. 4 hours 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). Edler has two more years on his contract past this one, which does have some value to teams normally as he won't just be a rental. But with the expansion draft, teams can't just decide they'll treat him as a rental (leave him unprotected) and offer a rental price since the Canucks will only be willing to accept a marginally lower value if they want to make a deal. They aren't going to be undercut in any significant way because the other team is worried about the expansion draft - they'd be better off to wait until the summer or even the next trade deadline to move him so they have no reason to force a deal for a lesser return right now. Sure, he could be moved if he agrees, but with the expansion draft throwing an extra wrench into the options it makes it very hard to see a deal working that the Canucks would be willing to accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Pears said: I'd be fine with paying Alzner that over 2-3 years tbh. Maybe if we gave him a little more term we could get him at $5m? Sought after, UFA D don't sign for 2-3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billabong Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Pears said: I'd be fine with paying Alzner that over 2-3 years tbh. Maybe if we gave him a little more term we could get him at $5m? Alzner would be ideal and maybe he does wanna come home ala hamhuis 6 years ago, but if alzner doesn't sign here and we trade edler beforehand you're left with Russell and kulikov for capable ufa left handed dman. The rest are downgrades on what we have or are too old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 19 minutes ago, billabong said: Alzner would be ideal and maybe he does wanna come home ala hamhuis 6 years ago, but if alzner doesn't sign here and we trade edler beforehand you're left with Russell and kulikov for capable ufa left handed dman. The rest are downgrades on what we have or are too old. That's true. That's why I really think Hutton is the one that will be traded. He's on a great contract for the next 2.5 years and he's probably the one teams would want most after Tanev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outsiders Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Hope Edler goes but there is no way management/Sedins would let that happen. Its going to most likely be Hutton/Tanev even tho it should be Edler who gets traded. But Edler is too much of a leader on the back end blah blah blah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Pears said: That's true. That's why I really think Hutton is the one that will be traded. He's on a great contract for the next 2.5 years and he's probably the one teams would want most after Tanev. And then you are still exposing Guddy sbisa or edler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 3 hours ago, goblix said: Hell they may want Sbisa just for the exposure requirements to satisfy the requirements. Alex Biega says hello Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goblix Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 4 minutes ago, coryberg said: Alex Biega says hello meant the team trading for depth for the playoffs may want Sbisa for that reason AND to satisfy the exposure requirements... There are far worse players to lose out there but yes, we have Biega for that requirement thus Sbisa is a trade that we can go ahead and do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 36 minutes ago, goblix said: meant the team trading for depth for the playoffs may want Sbisa for that reason AND to satisfy the exposure requirements... There are far worse players to lose out there but yes, we have Biega for that requirement thus Sbisa is a trade that we can go ahead and do. My bad, I miss read it. Cheaper options could be had for sure as expansion fodder. Marchenko for example was free on waivers. A team could however pick up sbisa as bait. The Knights either pick sbisa and leave the teams other exposed player or take that other player in which case the team keeps sbisa as a consolation prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 18 hours ago, J.R. said: Eklund-esque blogger writes something with absolutely no basis or source other than their own opinion and CDC goes gaga.... This is my thoughts as well. We certainly have deeper prospect depth on the left but most of it is still VERY green and/or not even ready for the NHL yet. I'm not opposed to moving Edler next year, or even more likely in the last year of his contract but it's too soon IMO. And even then, if Edler doesn't want to move, he's not likely going anywhere. And while Sbisa and Tanev make an excellent shutdown 2nd pair, Edler and Stetcher are FAR closer to a passable (if not entirely world beating) 1st pair next year. Which would stay on point with management's 'remain competitive' mantra. So unless Edler wants out, he's not going anywhere this season. Management will likely try hard to move one of Tanev or Sbisa ahead of expansion to minimize losses. I still like Tanev and one of Baer/Granlund for a top 3 forward myself. I'm more confident in Brisbois and Juolevi, hell even Pedan, than I am any righty in our prospect base. I might be underselling Subban versus Pedan. But is what I am saying not completely fair otherwise? So yeah, there is that behind contemplating Edler instead of a Tanev trade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 7 hours ago, DeNiro said: Can't afford to keep Edler if they plan on giving Gudbranson 4.5 million. Somethings gotta give. Him or Tanev will be gone. We can afford it next year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.