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

[Melvin]

You can’t qualify every single deal as being good *IF* you buy it out or trade the guy. The fact that you have to qualify it with those outs signals that it isn’t a very good deal. Buy outs aren’t free and cap dumps cost assets. Time to stop using these as fix all’s for every silly signing we make.

Yes, exactly. If you're invoking theoretical future ways to get out of a deal for justification that it's a good deal, then it's probably not a good deal.

If this were Al Eggman and he had the exact same profile but had played his entire career in Edmonton and the Canucks were signing him as UFA, I doubt many would be in favour of such a move.

Vancouver let ohlund go at the right time. Same for Salo. Both were difficult. It was time to wish Edler well on his future endeavours.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Deal is coming tonight or tomorrow. it will be a 3 year deal no idea on money and a MNTC. he will be exposed for the expansion draft. announcement forthcoming

We know, we're reading the same tweets.

 

[bandwagonesque]

If we were talking about a bad contract, this might be relevant. Many posters were convinced, or pretended to be convinced, that he'd be given well over 6m a season on a long term deal. This contract is unquestionably below market value.

 

[dKs89]

You're missing the issue. If Edler was the same age as Gardiner and Myers (whom most don't want to overpay to sign) there are no issues whatsoever giving him a 4 year contract. The problem is that he isn't. But you are right that the Canucks would be a worse team without him next season.

As for your comment about $5M AAV looking like peanuts that makes no sense. The cap isn't going up as much as you seem to be expecting. $5M is still a significant salary. Eriksson's contract surely isn't looking like close to peanuts.

5m is still a significant salary. In what universe? Because the world we live in right now, you're objectively incorrect on that. And incorrect in 2 years, 3 years and 4 years from now. 5m is significant 5 years ago. 5m is especially nothing for the level of play Edler brings.

 

[alternate]

Four years isn't ideal, but better than letting him walk for nothing, assuming the reported cap hit is accurate. Even at age 36-37, Edler should be a solid top 6 option, especially if others take on the heavy lifting (and if Edler is expected to do that at that point, having his cap hit on the books will be the least of our concerns).

In a perfect world, we'd be going on one year deals, but this reported deal, whether 3or 4 years, is fine. Happy with it, even if it's not perfect.

 

[MS]

If they screwed over the franchise by giving him a 4 year/$20 million deal instead of a 3 year/$20 million deal just so this lame-duck GM had an extra million of cap space to spend on other bad contracts to try and save his job (because he’s squandered the rest of his cap space on other terrible contracts), they should all be drawn and quartered.

As responsible stewards of the franchise, their job is to avoid hamstringing the franchise with bad contracts for ancient players when this team is intending to compete.

 

[Jay Cee]

Four years isn't ideal, but better than letting him walk for nothing, assuming the reported cap hit is accurate. Even at age 36-37, Edler should be a solid top 6 option, especially if others take on the heavy lifting (and if Edler is expected to do that at that point, having his cap hit on the books will be the least of our concerns).

In a perfect world, we'd be going on one year deals, but this reported deal, whether 3or 4 years, is fine. Happy with it, even if it's not perfect.

The problem is we are looking to improve on our d. We can't afford to sign someone for more who will be as good or worse than Edler just to cover his spot. If he gives us a solid value and security it is a no brainer. But it really all comes down to what the details of the deal are.

 

[MS]

Yes, exactly. If you're invoking theoretical future ways to get out of a deal for justification that it's a good deal, then it's probably not a good deal.

If this were Al Eggman and he had the exact same profile but had played his entire career in Edmonton and the Canucks were signing him as UFA, I doubt many would be in favour of such a move.

Vancouver let ohlund go at the right time. Same for Salo. Both were difficult. It was time to wish Edler well on his future endeavours.

If they hadn’t made such a mess of everything else and had been able to find any competent defenders in 6 years on the job, yes this was the time to walk away.

Unfortunately, with the disaster Benning has been, if we don’t want to be Edmonton and eventually turn a corner ... they really don’t have any other choice than to re-sign him if it can be done reasonably. It’s a better option than 7 years to Myers ... or Ben Hutton playing 25 minutes/game as your top-pairing shutdown defender.

This is, of course, if it’s 2-3 years. The best option would have been 2 years at a huge AAV. If it’s 4 years, it’s idiotic.

 

[CanaFan]

If we were talking about a bad contract, this might be relevant. Many posters were convinced, or pretended to be convinced, that he'd be given well over 6m a season on a long term deal. This contract is unquestionably below market value.

Sure but given how much he has wanted to stay in Vancouver in the past we have always had an edge vs the market. The question is not whether this is “below market” but whether this is an objectively good deal for this team in this situation. I struggle with how paying Edler $5.5M for his 33 -36 y/o seasons makes sense in our case.

 

[alternate]

3 years is a good deal; 4 years hamstrings the franchise. f*** off with that bullshit.

 

[CanaFan]

5m is still a significant salary. In what universe? Because the world we live in right now, you're objectively incorrect on that. And incorrect in 2 years, 3 years and 4 years from now. 5m is significant 5 years ago. 5m is especially nothing for the level of play Edler brings.

Would $7M have been insignificant for say, Jake Gardiner?

 

[CanaFan]

3 years is a good deal; 4 years hamstrings the franchise. **** off with that bull****.

3 years is an acceptable deal, 4 years is a poor deal. You do understand how degrees of something works, yes?

 

[Jay Cee]

3 years is a good deal; 4 years hamstrings the franchise. **** off with that bull****.

FOREVER!

 

[Melvin]

If they hadn’t made such a mess of everything else and had been able to find any competent defenders in 6 years on the job, yes this was the time to walk away.

Unfortunately, with the disaster Benning has been, if we don’t want to be Edmonton and eventually turn a corner ... they really don’t have any other choice than to re-sign him if it can be done reasonably. It’s a better option than 7 years to Myers ... or Ben Hutton playing 25 minutes/game as your top-pairing shutdown defender.

This is, of course, if it’s 2-3 years. The best option would have been 2 years at a huge AAV. If it’s 4 years, it’s idiotic.

They're already Edmonton. There's no avoiding this. Signing Edler for his mid 30s won't help you avoid being Edmonton. Signing Edler for his mid 20's might, but that can't be done.

Even at 3 years I would be against it. At four it should be an obvious no.

 

[alternate]

Sure but given how much he has wanted to stay in Vancouver in the past we have always had an edge vs the market. The question is not whether this is “below market” but whether this is an objectively good deal for this team in this situation. I struggle with how paying Edler $5.5M for his 33 -36 y/o seasons makes sense in our case.

You seem to be struggling with understanding what $5.5m gets you these days. Take a look at some of the recent contracts signed. It's less than half of Karlson's AAV. And how much higher will the cap be in three or four years? Better to pay an extra percentage point or two against the cap three/four years from now, than to shoot the team in the foot by letting Edler walk.

Obviously there's a demand from Edler it makes sense to walk from. A fourth year at this reported AAV is not it.

3 years is an acceptable deal, 4 years is a poor deal. You do understand how degrees of something works, yes?

Maybe know what you are talking about before squawking. Go back and read the thread. When reports were 3 years, MS said it was a good deal (not an acceptable one, a good one). Then reports say it might be 4, and now it's going to hamstring the franchise? Are poor and hamstrings synonyms? Is that really how degrees work? Don't think so, bub.

 

[PM]

Am I the only one who doesn’t really care about expansion draft protection? At this point I’d care about protecting Hughes and that’s it. Couldn’t really care less if any of our other dmen got claimed at this point.

 

[alternate]

Am I the only one who doesn’t really care about expansion draft protection? At this point I’d care about protecting Hughes and that’s it. Couldn’t really care less if any of our other dmen got claimed at this point.

Flexibility is always good. Lots can change between today and the expansion draft.

 

[MS]

They're already Edmonton. There's no avoiding this. Signing Edler for his mid 30s won't help you avoid being Edmonton. Signing Edler for his mid 20's might, but that can't be done.

Even at 3 years I would be against it. At four it should be an obvious no.

If we’d played Biega or Schenn instead of Gudbranson all year we probably make the playoffs last year. We do have one thing Edmonton never had, which is an elite goalie.

I don’t see how anyone can realistically expect a team with no defensive depth to ditch their top 2 defenders and replace them with nobody. They aren’t going to go 2015 Leafs at this point.

Obviously we shouldn’t be in this position but once we’re in this position ...

 

[bandwagonesque]

Sure but given how much he has wanted to stay in Vancouver in the past we have always had an edge vs the market. The question is not whether this is “below market” but whether this is an objectively good deal for this team in this situation. I struggle with how paying Edler $5.5M for his 33 -36 y/o seasons makes sense in our case.

Yes, and that edge was commensurately reflected in the contract he signed. It's not a huge win for anyone in particular, or grounds for crtiticism.

 

[Brock Boeser Laser Show]

Am I the only one who doesn’t really care about expansion draft protection? At this point I’d care about protecting Hughes and that’s it. Couldn’t really care less if any of our other dmen got claimed at this point.

you should care. When the team looks to add a defenseman or two over the next few years that open slot will become valuable. Number of teams will need to move a Dman so they don't get bent over by Seattle in the expansion draft and the canucks should be in all of those discussions.

 

[opendoor]

There were only 7 regular defensemen in the league last season that were as old as Edler will be in year 3 of his deal. So yeah, I do think a 4th year is a bigger problem than it might be in most other situations.

 

[vanarchy]

This is not as bad as I was expecting. Hmm...

Seeing Edler in another jersey would have been very strange.

 

[NoRaise4Brackett]

He has been and currently is worth much more than the 5 mil he's been making. Bringing him back on a home-discount deal is pretty much a no brainer. There are questions about length of term and when his play drops off, though. We should be concerned, but practically freaking out about it is senseless until his play actually drops off. He's still going strong at 33, and he could keep that up for a while yet, who knows? I mean, how old was this year's Norris winner?

4 years is a little risky, but I don't think it's all that bad... a lot depends on the details though(front-loaded/expansion protection/ NMC/NTC)

 

[Baby Pettersson]

We know, we're reading the same tweets.

@canuckfan75 is a credible source. His posts are as good as the tweets your reading. Just an FYI.

 

[Nomobo]

Happy with this. 3 years would have been better but happy Edler will likely retire a Canuck.