Rumor: Alexander Edler: 3, maybe 4-year deal imminent, AAV $5.0 - $5.5M, no Expansion Draft protection

[StreetHawk]

After what happened with Anaheim having to protect Bieksa and losing Theodore as a result I wonder if anyone gives him expansion protection. He may not have as much leverage as he thinks

It’s also not just who’s on the Canucks it’s also about using an open protection spot to see if you can upgrade the roster. Anaheim has 5 guys who would be eligible for the ED in D being Fowler, Manson, Lindholm along with prospects of Larson and Mahura.

Can try to work out a deal that makes sense. If you can’t you can’t but you should give yourself the option to do so rather than tie yourself to a 35 year old.

3 years with the first 2 having nmc but make him available for the ED is the best the Canucks can do. If protection is the sticking point have to let him go to market to see if any other team gives him that.

 

[Hit the post]

After what happened with Anaheim having to protect Bieksa and losing Theodore as a result I wonder if anyone gives him expansion protection. He may not have as much leverage as he thinks

Never underestimate the stupidity (I'm not talking about Benning) of NHL GMs. The cap is meant to reign in those urges by them (to mixed success). They are their own worst enemies.

 

[Luck 6]

Elder not resigning and the Canucks getting nothing for him? Shocking

Ineptitude of Benning continues.

Haha pfft.. Edler wasn’t going to waive anyways, don’t act like they didn’t explore this.

 

[Javaman]

Edler can get money, or he can get term/NMC.

He can't get both. He just can't, and I hope that Benning ... aww crap I couldn't complete this sentence.

Which current Canucks players would need to be protected during the expansion draft?

 

[elitepete]

No

When Edler was hurt, they used Pouliot, Hutton and Stecher all on the 1st unit at times. None of them did a good job. Pp is proven to be better with Edler.

There is a reason from 2011 to now. 4 different coaches has Used Edler on the 1st unit. AV, Torts, Willy and Green. There has to be a reason for that. The reason he is the best option out of everybody.

I do have good news if you are not a fan of Edler. Most likely Hughes will take his spot next year on the 1st unit.

Wrong. The pp sucked with Edler on it too.

 

[Canucks1096]

Wrong. The pp sucked with Edler on it too.

Fyi, we are not having a debate regarding if the pp is good or not. We are having debating about you saying Hutton and Stecher are better on the pp which is not true. I will talk your language. The pp sucked less with Edler.

Edler 174 pp Mins, 17 ppp
Hutton 127 pp Mins 8 ppp
Stecher 68 pp Mins 2 ppp

Facts don't lie

 

[TruGr1t]

Edler can get money, or he can get term/NMC.

He can't get both. He just can't, and I hope that Benning ... aww crap I couldn't complete this sentence.

Which current Canucks players would need to be protected during the expansion draft?

He can certainly get whatever he wants if he's willing to sign with another team, which is obviously becoming a real possibility.

 

[Hit the post]

He can certainly get whatever he wants if he's willing to sign with another team, which is obviously becoming a real possibility.

That’s ok. More room for our blue chip D prospects. What could go wrong? At worst, it’s been proven Jim can easily acquire even just average D via free agency or trade.

All is well.

 

[Javaman]

He can certainly get whatever he wants if he's willing to sign with another team, which is obviously becoming a real possibility.

I was pleading rather than predicting....

 

[TruGr1t]

That’s ok. More room for our blue chip D prospects. What could go wrong? At worst, it’s been proven Jim can easily acquire even just average D via free agency or trade.

I've maintained since the TDL that Edler leaving is a pretty likely scenario. The Canucks cannot match his demand for a movement clause over 3+ years without putting young players at risk. The only way they can likely retain him is to go bonkers on the salary number (but it really equates to the same thing ... making Edler unmovable), which would have a similar impact on their ability to get younger, core players under contract due to the cap. You'd basically have to give him such a high cap hit nobody else would want him.

If Edler is absolutely unwilling to budge on the movement clause over 3-4 years he won't be in Vancouver. Even Benning isn't stupid enough to do that.

I suspect it will result in us keeping Tanev and a really, really dumb contract to Myers or Gardiner (who management will label "young" players).

 

[PetterssonSimp]

Wrong. The pp sucked with Edler on it too.

This is actually quite false and was covered quite a bit during the final stretch of the season where Edler was out and the Canucks PP went from 20% efficiency to around 7% without Edler. When he returned at the end of the season, funnily enough the Canucks ended a 6 game streak of no PP goals to go on like a 4 or 5 game stretch of PP goals in each. A big part of that was Alex Edler as Quinn hadn’t even played a game yet

 

[ChilliBilly]

I still think the easy answer is that they give him a 2 yr deal at something like $5.5M, and a full NMC. And sign him again if he wants to keep playing. I think staying in VCR is more important to him than maxing out his contract.

 

[Hit the post]

I still think the easy answer is that they give him a 2 yr deal at something like $5.5M, and a full NMC. And sign him again if he wants to keep playing. I think staying in VCR is more important to him than maxing out his contract.

The amount really is immaterial so pay him a bit more to take the term you want with the full protection he wants.

 

[ChilliBilly]

The amount really is immaterial so pay him a bit more to take the term you want with the full protection he wants.

I think the NMC us important to Edler, and he wants to stay here. The guys already made $30 -40 M dollars, why would he care about $1M a year? But the cap space might matter to the Canucks. (Though probably not in the term of the contract, I must admit).

 

[VanJack]

It's always somewhat surprising to me how the fan-base gets fixated on some players....maybe they remember the Alex Edler of the Stanley Cup Final years, eight seasons ago.

He's now 33, and has been plagued by injuries the last couple of years. Sure, he's been effective when he's been in the lineup, but when it comes to giving money and term to a player well on the north side of 30, it rarely ends well. Witness Louie Eriksson.

So if Edler is holding out for a NMC, he's as good as gone. And if the Canucks go for anything longer than three seasons on term, then they're playing with fire.

 

[TruGr1t]

I still think the easy answer is that they give him a 2 yr deal at something like $5.5M, and a full NMC. And sign him again if he wants to keep playing. I think staying in VCR is more important to him than maxing out his contract.

This is great from a Canucks perspective, but why the heck would Edler do that? He could likely get more than that over 3-4 years as a free agent and get the NMC. People seem to think he's going to take a massive risk and haircut to play here. I dunno ... maybe he is a huge idiot. He can retire in Vancouver within 5 years.

The precursor to any deal resembling that is likely Edler firing his agent because no representative worth anything would let a pending FA take that contract.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

I think the NMC us important to Edler, and he wants to stay here. The guys already made $30 -40 M dollars, why would he care about $1M a year? But the cap space might matter to the Canucks. (Though probably not in the term of the contract, I must admit).

While I agree it’s important to him, I wonder if it’s that important to Benning? He’s found himself handcuffed by this sort of situation a few times (Kesler, Hamhuis, Edler) where players have either limited the number of teams Benning can talk to, or flat out refused to even entertain the idea of waiving. I wonder if it’s not even the term that’s holding up a potential negotiation, but the inclusion of any sort of NTC/NMC.

 

[dwarf]

I have always liked Edler and his play here in Van.

I think a two year term of 5 mil each, with a limited to 15 team trade list trade clause, would be fine. I think both camps could come to that agreement.

 

[StreetHawk]

I have always liked Edler and his play here in Van.

I think a two year term of 5 mil each, with a limited to 15 team trade list trade clause, would be fine. I think both camps could come to that agreement.

It would be a nmc for a 2 year deal which I think is fine.

For me, a 2 year term for $6.65 per is $13.3 mill. If you did a 3 year term for $15 million which is equally paid out then if you buy him out before year 3, he still gets $3.3 mill taking his total to $13.33 mill.

Money is basically the same.

If there is a team that will give him the 3ed year protected for the ED then nothing you can do. Wonder what team would do that. Maybe then best to let him go through that negotiation window with other teams to see if he’s likely to get that. If he does then he’s gone.

If he doesn’t get that then the option is either a 2 year big cap deal or do a 3 year deal with the last year without ED protection.

 

[boogeybendo]

I have always liked Edler and his play here in Van.

I think a two year term of 5 mil each, with a limited to 15 team trade list trade clause, would be fine. I think both camps could come to that agreement.

You're dreaming if you think this is possible. If 2 years, it will be for more money than that, with a full no move.

 

[TruGr1t]

I have always liked Edler and his play here in Van.

I think a two year term of 5 mil each, with a limited to 15 team trade list trade clause, would be fine. I think both camps could come to that agreement.

Edler would already be signed if anything remotely in this ballpark was available.

I'd imagine the Canucks have gone as high as $6M AAV already on two years.

 

[ChilliBilly]

It's always somewhat surprising to me how the fan-base gets fixated on some players....maybe they remember the Alex Edler of the Stanley Cup Final years, eight seasons ago.

He's now 33, and has been plagued by injuries the last couple of years. Sure, he's been effective when he's been in the lineup, but when it comes to giving money and term to a player well on the north side of 30, it rarely ends well. Witness Louie Eriksson.

So if Edler is holding out for a NMC, he's as good as gone. And if the Canucks go for anything longer than three seasons on term, then they're playing with fire.

Its just not that cut and dried. Neither side is going to get everything they want. If I was Edler, I would agree to $1.5M salary cut for the NMC. The Canucks say we do not want to use up D spot protecting you for the ED, so take your chances and sign for 2 years. I still think this makes sense.

 

[me2]

You're dreaming if you think this is possible. If 2 years, it will be for more money than that, with a full no move.

If I had to guess Edler is looking for something like $6m x 4 years - total $24m. If he gets a career ender he walks away after two years with only what he made in the 2 year deal, if his play falls off a cliff the Canucks let him walk after 2. Edler is taking all the risk in the 2 year dealm he will want to get paid up front. Anything around 2 years could be in the $7-8m range.


Deal 1: 7.5m+7.5m NMC
Expansion draft
Deal 2: $4.5m + $4.5m NMC
Total: $24m

 

[Kryten]

3 years at 6m with 2 nmc’s and a limited ntc for the third year. Or 2 years at 6.5 with nmc. Really dont want to give him term even though Im a big fan of his.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

I'd laugh so hard if the team can't sign a guy who wants to stay here so much he flatly refused to waive his NMC at the deadline.