Vancouver Canucks Messageboard

Don't let the door hit you in the back on the way out, Al.

Seriously, don't... you'll fail the physical and get sent back.

Should we trade Alex Edler? Given we have a surplus of left hand D and I think you should always use a surplus in one area to fix a deficit in another, then yes. I also think he would bring a strong return - a top 6 forward and perhaps a nice pick upgrade. If I am right about that then I think MG should pull the trigger at the draft.

Do I think this will happen? I think it will be very hard for MG to trade a player who was just signed to an extension that includes a (not kicked in yet) NMC. I hope MG feels differently and understands that his ultimate responsibility as a GM is to use his assets however he has to to ice a winning product. But like I said, I have a hard time believing he will actually pull the trigger.

If we're in such a hurry to get rid of Alex Edler, why would another GM want him?

darren wrote:If we're in such a hurry to get rid of Alex Edler, why would another GM want him?

darren, the urgency is not to "get rid of Alex Edler". The urgency is that we have a forward group that needs a makeover. We have an asset on the back end, see Alex Edler, who would be of serious value on the trade market and would bring back a nice return that could help out the Sedins, Kesler, etc., who are clearly in desperate need of support.

herb wrote:

darren wrote:If we're in such a hurry to get rid of Alex Edler, why would another GM want him?

darren, the urgency is not to "get rid of Alex Edler". The urgency is that we have a forward group that needs a makeover. We have an asset on the back end, see Alex Edler, who would be of serious value on the trade market and would bring back a nice return that could help out the Sedins, Kesler, etc., who are clearly in desperate need of support.

It's a combination of both.

We ARE wanting to get rid of Alex Edler.

I am not really in the trading Edler camp, although I would hope GMMG is listening to offers. Unless he gets a 'blow you away' type offer, I want him to stay.

theman wrote:I am not really in the trading Edler camp, although I would hope GMMG is listening to offers. Unless he gets a 'blow you away' type offer, I want him to stay.

I believe he gets a NTC or NMC come September when his new contract kicks in. After the body of work we have seen over the last 2 seasons, we are definitely better off moving him now rather than being saddled with his sorry, inconsistent, play for the next 5 years. We've been death on Luongo for the last 3 years over his inconsistent performance and his $5.3M cap hit. Edler will be the same story.....and there will be sweet fuck all to be done about it.

Trade him NOW! If him in a package with anything gets us into the top 5 for the draft then Gillis should pull the trigger.

herb wrote:

darren wrote:If we're in such a hurry to get rid of Alex Edler, why would another GM want him?

darren, the urgency is not to "get rid of Alex Edler". The urgency is that we have a forward group that needs a makeover. We have an asset on the back end, see Alex Edler, who would be of serious value on the trade market and would bring back a nice return that could help out the Sedins, Kesler, etc., who are clearly in desperate need of support.

And who has a NTC kick in very very soon.

To get you must give. We are overloaded on the left side considering the problem all of our lefties have in adapting to playing the right side. This was painfully obvious every time Salo was out of the line up in years past and painfully obvious when Bieksa was out of the line up this year and the loss of Tanev hurt us in the playoffs. Bieksa and Hamhuis and Garrison have NTC or some variety. Edler's kicks in very soon. He is movable on a good LTC with a good cap hit for what he brings. To get the quality we want back we have to give up something of equal value. I like what I see from Garrison. I like Hamhuis although he had a tough series. I like the good Kev but detest the Casual Kev. To me one of Kev or Edler should be offered up to get talent back.

A team like Edmonton could really use a guy like Edler. They may have to part with one of their kids to get someone like him. A team like the ISlanders sure could use him. Detroit, the Flyers, the Panthers, Dallas, Columbus, Ottawa, Buffalo, Winnipeg, just to name a few teams that could benefit greatly from what he brings. Edler straight up for Kane??

We need a true top six that can score. Edler could get us that. Trade Edler and the rights to Mason Raymond to Winnipeg for Evander Kane. We need a good solid right handed D man and MG needs to find us one.

ukcanuck wrote: Have you or any of you other ahem, fans considered that if the offence averaged, oh I don't know maybe like a goal a game more, over the last three games, none of you would be giving away defencemen like they were cold germs?
Seriously it take 8 NHL defencemen to win a cup and you want to gas at least three like they grow on trees... Wow.

It takes 8 NHL defensemen to win a Cup? Last year, the Kings used 6. Depth is good and you certainly want your #5 Dman to be able to step into the top 4 and your #7th Dman to step into the lineup, but getting top 4 pairings working and clicking is much more important. Edler has shown zero ability to carry a defensive pairing (i.e. he is greatly affected by the play of his partner) and has showed zero chemistry with anyone of our top 4 defensemen candidates. Our other difficult to work with defenseman is Bieksa, but he has shown he can play with Hamhuis full time.

Seriously. What's your beef? First you called the thread topic stupid, then you quote me and put words into my mouth. Where in this thread did I even remotely suggest that I want to "gas at least three" defensemen? I want the Canucks to get rid of Barker and Ballard, but I don't think I've mentioned that in this thread until now and that has little to do with this thread subject. And why in the hell would you get the idea that I am proposing that we give away Edler? I said "Edler can command a significant package in terms of youth and draft picks that will help secure the Canucks future." I obviously feel that trading Edler can bring upon significant changes to the team.

I have outlined why I think Gillis should look into trading Edler. So instead of calling this thread topic stupid and attributing your own words to me, why don't you tell us why you think it would be stupid for Gillis to entertain the idea of trading Edler?

herb wrote:

darren wrote:If we're in such a hurry to get rid of Alex Edler, why would another GM want him?

darren, the urgency is not to "get rid of Alex Edler". The urgency is that we have a forward group that needs a makeover. We have an asset on the back end, see Alex Edler, who would be of serious value on the trade market and would bring back a nice return that could help out the Sedins, Kesler, etc., who are clearly in desperate need of support.

Yep. And even if it only brings futures, it frees up $5M in cap space that can be used to bolster the forward lines (once we solve our deadweight problems).

The urgency has to do with Edler's NTC kicking in. The market for UFA defensemen is very thin and any team looking to acquire Edler will not have to honor the NTC. Edler is a very desirable package for a defenseman, which is the reason why Gillis made Edler the highest paid defenseman on the team and planned the salary structure as such (e.g. not offering Ehrhoff what he wanted) He was the closest thing to a #1 defenseman the Canucks have, but he hasn't shown any chemistry with Hamhuis, Garrison, or Bieksa, three guys who figure prominently in the Canucks' top 4 for the foreseeable future. There's an opportunity here for Gillis to significantly reshape the Canucks with one trade.

If it's the right deal, my analogy is Schenn for JVR, two guys who needed a change of scenery, young, years ahead of them. D-core is where the Canucks can deal from strength. So, yes, if it can bring a legit, and I prefer young, top 6 guy, do it. But I'd say the same for KB3 too. As much as we have issues with Edler, and Bieksa at times, I can tell you from living outside market, they have value, top 4 D-men don't grow on trees, and you always have the GM/Coach who feels like they can get more out of them than their previous team...any serious, big trade has to include one of either KB or Edler I predict

Another scenario I seen on hf is Edler to TB for their 3rd overall pick.

So we then can draft one of MacKinnon or Drouin.

I'm quite astounded by the lack of postings in this thread confronting the harsh reality that good defenseman are not growing on trees in this day and age. If you trade Edler you best be replacing him with another top 4 defenseman

Were spoiled biker...

RoyalDude wrote:If you trade Edler you best be replacing him with another top 4 defenseman

Not an upgrade, but any chance Tanev can play a top 4 role?