CptCanuck16 Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 Edler will turn 33 mid April. Realisticaly he has maximum 3 years left in the league. On his current contract he made $6m the last two seasons and $4.5m this season with an overall cap hit of $5m. I would like to see him resigned for 2-3 more years at his current salary ($4.5m). If he is willing to do that I see no problem giving him an NMC. Let him retire a Canuck. He's been loyal to the franchise all these years so it would be a slap in the face to try and get a return for him when he's on the doorstep of retirement. Perhaps even push for just 2 years. That way if his play declines but he still wants to play one more season they can resign him then at a discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 8 minutes ago, CptCanuck16 said: Edler will turn 33 mid April. Realisticaly he has maximum 3 years left in the league. On his current contract he made $6m the last two seasons and $4.5m this season with an overall cap hit of $5m. I would like to see him resigned for 2-3 more years at his current salary ($4.5m). If he is willing to do that I see no problem giving him an NMC. Let him retire a Canuck. He's been loyal to the franchise all these years so it would be a slap in the face to try and get a return for him when he's on the doorstep of retirement. Perhaps even push for just 2 years. That way if his play declines but he still wants to play one more season they can resign him then at a discount. That is the problem though. Then they have to expose a prospect and risk losing him rather than having Edler exposed and probably wouldn't be chosen anyways in the Expansion draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Baggins said: Not true. He's played Guddy, Pouliot, and Biega on both sides at various times with injuries. It's whether or not the player is comfortable playing his off side. Hughes was asked at the draft about playing right side and said it didn't matter to him. He said both sides have advantages and disadvantages. Edler on the other hand said years ago he wasn't as comfortable on the right side. You remember the rest of the quote? Can't remember it exactly but I think he mentioned better shooting angles (which is true and why we see RH'd Boeser setup on the left wall PP) or something to that effect on his off side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 16 minutes ago, Westcoasting said: That is the problem though. Then they have to expose a prospect and risk losing him rather than having Edler exposed and probably wouldn't be chosen anyways in the Expansion draft. If it's two years, the NMC isn't a problem. It's only if the contract is 3 years that it becomes a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xereau Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 1 year at a time. Cheap as dirt. Free NMC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 6 minutes ago, aGENT said: You remember the rest of the quote? Can't remember it exactly but I think he mentioned better shooting angles (which is true and why we see RH'd Boeser setup on the left wall PP) or something to that effect on his off side. I don't recall him getting into specifics. Just that there's advantages and disadvantages playing either side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stelar Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 Gardiner would last about 5 games before he took over from Pouliot for whipping boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 Of course he should, we aren't exactly loaded with guys who can capably play top minutes on a consistent basis. Pay the man and work out what length you can but don't budge on expansion draft protection. Seattle grabbing a 34-35 year old D is unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptCanuck16 Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Westcoasting said: That is the problem though. Then they have to expose a prospect and risk losing him rather than having Edler exposed and probably wouldn't be chosen anyways in the Expansion draft. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll take Pouliot instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptCanuck16 Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 3 minutes ago, Coconuts said: Of course he should, we aren't exactly loaded with guys who can capably play top minutes on a consistent basis. Pay the man and work out what length you can but don't budge on expansion draft protection. Seattle grabbing a 34-35 year old D is unlikely. And really, would getting snagged by Seattle really disrupt his family life that much anyway? It's like a 45 minute flight from SEA to YVR. The family could stay in Vancouver and he could get an apartment in Seattle and still spend every day off with them. It wouldn't be a huge burden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 1 minute ago, CptCanuck16 said: And really, would getting snagged by Seattle really disrupt his family life that much anyway? It's like a 45 minute flight from SEA to YVR. The family could stay in Vancouver and he could get an apartment in Seattle and still spend every day off with them. It wouldn't be a huge burden. Worst comes to worst we could trade Seattle some sort of incentive not to pick him too. Don't imagine it'd cost much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlwaysACanuckFan Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 Max term looks as if it's giving us the finger, anyways I went with 2, 3, and 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hlinkas wrister Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 2 hours ago, Baggins said: Not true. He's played Guddy, Pouliot, and Biega on both sides at various times with injuries. It's whether or not the player is comfortable playing his off side. Hughes was asked at the draft about playing right side and said it didn't matter to him. He said both sides have advantages and disadvantages. Edler on the other hand said years ago he wasn't as comfortable on the right side. Yes Baggins, of course Green will play people on their off side when forced to because of injuries but with a healthy lineup he almost exclusively lines his D pairings up on their strong sides. That's all I was trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 1 minute ago, hlinkas wrister said: Yes Baggins, of course Green will play people on their off side when forced to because of injuries but with a healthy lineup he almost exclusively lines his D pairings up on their strong sides. That's all I was trying to say. Green does the same, too often to the detriment of certain players, with his wingers. Clearly, Goldy and Jake are better offensive players on their off Wings. Maybe we need JB to tell Green to let the boys play? I remember Gillis gave AV that direction, when our last core was coming along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hlinkas wrister Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, Alflives said: Green does the same, too often to the detriment of certain players, with his wingers. Clearly, Goldy and Jake are better offensive players on their off Wings. Maybe we need JB to tell Green to let the boys play? I remember Gillis gave AV that direction, when our last core was coming along. I think if the GM needs to tell the coach how to line up his players then one of them isn't going to be around very long. I don't agree with everything Green does but in the long run deployment is his domain and he's done ok with what he's got in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 5 minutes ago, hlinkas wrister said: I think if the GM needs to tell the coach how to line up his players then one of them isn't going to be around very long. I don't agree with everything Green does but in the long run deployment is his domain and he's done ok with what he's got in my opinion. Gillis directed AV to coach an offensive style, instead of a trapping defensive game. AV made the change, got an extension, and our team scored like crazy. Maybe Green needs the same direction? We do play too much in our own zone. We do stand around a lot in the neutral zone. Our forecheck is kind of only one guy deep. We do sag five guys back to our crease. We do have difficulty supporting pucks. We definitely play a defensive game. Maybe it’s time to ease up on the reins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hlinkas wrister Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 3 minutes ago, Alflives said: Gillis directed AV to coach an offensive style, instead of a trapping defensive game. AV made the change, got an extension, and our team scored like crazy. Maybe Green needs the same direction? We do play too much in our own zone. We do stand around a lot in the neutral zone. Our forecheck is kind of only one guy deep. We do sag five guys back to our crease. We do have difficulty supporting pucks. We definitely play a defensive game. Maybe it’s time to ease up on the reins? I give Travis a lot of leeway with the amount of injuries they've had this year and a roster that quite frankly nobody in their right mind thinks is ready to be competitive yet. Those 2 factors alone will dictate a negative or defensive style and there's some good long term benefit to him establishing the framework of good defensive habits with a young team. It's a little early yet to let the Goldy's and the Jake's run the asylum lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 1 hour ago, CptCanuck16 said: Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll take Pouliot instead? Hopefully he's gone this summer and we won't have to worry about him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hindustan Smyl Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 I’m interested to see how Quinn Hughes performs while up here before making a determination on Edler. I suspect that this is the main reason why management is willing to burn a year off his ELC. 1) They want to see where Hughes’ level is at relative to the NHL level. 2) If Hughes is Werenski caliber (this is not a stylistic comparison.....just overall caliber), then I do believe that the Canucks will possibly explore the idea of moving on from Edler. 3) I think the Canucks want to get a more accurate picture of the team as a whole heading into next season (this relates to point number two). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timråfan Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 He's tbe best in defence now. He had an instant impact on PP when he came back. So even if we get two that's better than him he is needed. I'm fascinated by the short sighted thinking by fans. A lot of fans just want to get rid of players without any hesitation and regardless of what comes after... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.