If the next core is mostly in the organization now then this team is more ****ed than I thought, and the fact you're okay with that is shocking.
This team hasn't even started a rebuild, and you're talking about making the team good again? Just because this has been the worst team in the NHL over the last 3.75 seasons doesn't mean they've been rebuilding. It's just been a bad team. One that you celebrated. A bad GM who built a bad team, but you claimed he's done a good job.
The Bieksa situation isn't a hypothetical. The NHL expansion draft is happening. That's a fact. They are also using the same rules that they did with Vegas. Edler getting an NMC is a hypothetical, but that's what we're discussing. If Edler demands an NMC, you walk away. It's called pre-planning. But if you prefer they be forced to protect a 35 year old Edler and lose one of Hughes, Hutton or Stecher (or Juolevi) then that's on you. And that's IF there are no actual improvements to the defense.
Lol, you are funny!
Benning needs to dump Petterson, Boeser, Horvat, Gaudette, Hughes, Juolevi, Markstrom/Demko and get that rebuild started all ready!
Just look up the difference between No Move Clause vs No Trade Clause, like you're stance isn't terrible and I'd even be willing to give more $$$ but you absolutely cannot hand out a clause that forces you to protect what will be a 35 yr old asset. That's just dumb.
I get it, and am not saying it shouldn't be part of the calculation. And by reports posted in this thread, it is part of the negotiation. But lots can happen over a couple of years. If Hughes and Juolevi both emergence as bona fide top 4 dmen on the left side, maybe Hutton is trade bait if we are still trying to find a winger for Horvat. Just spit balling hypotheticals because I don't accept the false dichotomy of NMC for Edler = losing Hutton/Stecher. Too much time, too many variables.
Now I agree completely that maximizing flexibility is preferable. But not to the point I let Edler walk for nothing...there is an AAV that I am willing to take the risk and deal with the consequences when they are actually consequences.
When Beagle was Gaunce's age he was a ****ty AHL player.
So every crappy 23 year old is going to be Beagle when he's 27? Of course not.