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

[StreetHawk]

There comes a time where the Canucks need to help themselves out. I get that Edler wants to stay here for quite possibly his career. And it’s not that we don’t want him here. But we need some sort of flexibility to “pull the schute” if s*** hits the fan. We are not saying he can’t play in the NHL just that we don’t want to be stuck with an aging D (that may no loger provide us what we need) because he has separation anxiety.

That’s why I would do 2 years for higher cap make. Make the difference between a 2 vs 3 year deal worth around $2 million in total money.

Ask Edler if he would move for that $2 million guaranteed or stay in Vancouver and if he’s still productive then he’d likely get that third year.

You have to as a team roll the dice that no other nhl team would do a 3 year deal with a nmc. There are not many Dmen that will finish this season at age 36. The 2001 draft class is 36 this year. That includes Hamhuis who is at a cap hit of $1.25 per. Every player ages differently but you should absolutely look at how they have held up in the prior 3 seasons as your basis of expectation.

 

[Hit the post]

That includes Hamhuis who is at a cap hit of $1.25 per. Every player ages differently but you should absolutely look at how they have held up in the prior 3 seasons as your basis of expectation.

I think he's managed to "hold up" because of the depth on the blueline in Nashville. Edler & Tanev get ground up every season (and miss games) because we can't afford to cut down their minutes at certain times in the season (not with the "depth" consisting of the trash Benning has brought in).

 

[vanarchy]

I'm disappointed that he wouldn't play 20 games elsewhere to help the team in the long run. It's his choice though and we have to respect it.

 

[Havre]

I'm disappointed that he wouldn't play 20 games elsewhere to help the team in the long run. It's his choice though and we have to respect it.

I don’t know how it is for Edler, but my impression is that at least for some there is a bit of a cultural difference at play. I can’t back this up with data, but it seems to me that Swedes are more “loyal” to their team than many NAs. That is not meant as criticism of NA players, but it might explain Edler’s decision (if that is what he ends up doing).

Personally, if I had been a NHL player, I could never have voluntarily switched teams during the season. I would have played to win with “my” team. If that wasn’t possible so be it. Winning with another team just wouldn’t be the same.

Now that seems to be considered showing lack of ambition etc in NA. And it probably isn’t completely rational, but then again sports is about feelings. And the upside of that kind of mentality is the team spirit it breeds (which is one of the reasons why I believe Sweden and Finland are often punching above their weight internationally).

 

[David71]

he will get traded

 

[TryamkinPleaseReturn]

Gillis used NTCs to keep cap hit downs. In hindsight that turned out to be a mistake that became largely irrelevant.

Benning (or at least Linden and Benning) does have a history of caring about such things as NTCs and NMCs. Thus far there hasn't been anyone who got a full NTC or NMC for the length of their contract. Whether it was Eriksson or Sutter,

Let's take a moment and give praise that he hasn't given a full NTC to the winger who currently has 21 points this season, or to the center who currently has 6 points.

(Shockingly he managed to give them both significant NTCs as well as a combined ~10.5 million per year) (But that's beside the point)

even when NMCs/NTCs are given out, it does taper off towards the end.

Oh yeah you mean like the ones given to franchise cornerstones Jay Beagle and Antoine Roussel?

Gudbranson also didn't get any sort of NTC protection.

Well Hallelujah.

You're really comparing Benning giving NTCs (in addition to bloated contracts) to past-their-prime 4th liners, to Gillis giving NTCs to elite players that took a franchise to the SCF? I mean all power to you I just don't think you're making the point you think you are

 

[ProstheticConscience]

he will get traded

No he won't.

 

[F A N]

Well Hallelujah.

You're really comparing Benning giving NTCs (in addition to bloated contracts) to past-their-prime 4th liners, to Gillis giving NTCs to elite players that took a franchise to the SCF? I mean all power to you I just don't think you're making the point you think you are

What point do you think I am trying to make? I stated "Benning (or at least Linden and Benning) does have a history of caring about such things as NTCs and NMCs. Thus far there hasn't been anyone who got a full NTC or NMC for the length of their contract." That's a fact. Mind you, I have no issue with giving out some form of NTCs to attractive UFAs. That's just par the course. And Gillis didn't just give NTCs to elite players. Higgins and Hansen got a 8 team trade list (as in they will provide a list of 8 teams they can be traded to) for the length of their contracts. Roussel in comparison got a 15 team no trade that becomes an 8 then 5. Even Sutter, next season his full NTC becomes a 15 team no trade. On D, Garrison and Bieksa got full NTCs for the duration of their contracts as did Hamhuis. Tanev got a 8 team no trade list.

The point is that judging by the contracts given out, Benning (at least Linden and Benning) has negotiated the ability to "move" that player at the tail end of their contracts into the contracts they have been handing out. That was the point I was making. So say Edler re-signs here. I don't see him signing a contract that would necessitate the Canucks protecting him for the expansion draft.

 

[Peter10]

What point do you think I am trying to make? I stated "Benning (or at least Linden and Benning) does have a history of caring about such things as NTCs and NMCs. Thus far there hasn't been anyone who got a full NTC or NMC for the length of their contract." That's a fact. Mind you, I have no issue with giving out some form of NTCs to attractive UFAs. That's just par the course. And Gillis didn't just give NTCs to elite players. Higgins and Hansen got a 8 team trade list (as in they will provide a list of 8 teams they can be traded to) for the length of their contracts. Roussel in comparison got a 15 team no trade that becomes an 8 then 5. Even Sutter, next season his full NTC becomes a 15 team no trade. On D, Garrison and Bieksa got full NTCs for the duration of their contracts as did Hamhuis. Tanev got a 8 team no trade list.

The point is that judging by the contracts given out, Benning (at least Linden and Benning) has negotiated the ability to "move" that player at the tail end of their contracts into the contracts they have been handing out. That was the point I was making. So say Edler re-signs here. I don't see him signing a contract that would necessitate the Canucks protecting him for the expansion draft.

The difference is that Gillis/Gilman got a discount on the salary in return for the NTC/NMCs while Benning/Linden still pay top dollar along with the NTCs. The previous regime tried to squeeze out everything possible to give the team the best chances they could for a cup run. Now the team is handing out those contracts for mentorship.

 

[tyhee]

The possibility of a trade has been considered according to reports.

Nothing new here, but if Edler would have waived for a trade imo it is a mistake to miss out on trading him, assuming he'd bring something in return or couldn't be re-signed to a reasonable contract. That is, unless the return for him is so low as to have little value he should be traded if possible. If the contract he seeks isn't sufficiently team-friendly, he should be traded if possible..

I use the Ignore feature pretty liberally and there are a lot of posts in this thread I'm not seeing, but gather from responses there are people willing to give Edler a NMC. I haven't seen the arguments in favour of giving a NMC but can't imagine a logical argument in favour of it unless the priority is the present with no regard to the future. Edler has been a trooper for this franchise, but the chances of him continuing to be effective when this team is able to compete at a high level again are so small that it makes no sense to bind yourself to keep him instead of a top-4 defencemen in his prime.

Obviously I'm not in the Future is Now camp. Green had some pretty mediocre teams in or competing for playoff berths in Utica, but I'm not at all sure the Canucks of the next couple of seasons can rise to that level of mediocrity. Even if they can, who cares? Prioritizing the present pretty much means the ceiling is mediocrity. Are there really Canucks fans who want mediocrity as the best the team can do? (Yes, I know, they consider the team just about ready to compete for the Cup. They have faith that all will work out, that not preserving cap space won't hurt and that losing a top-6 d-man won't hurt either. Those like me who do not have faith are not true fans.)

Unfortunately, the present is what matters to the person making the decision about what to do with Edler. If he doesn't make the playoffs this year or next, he rates to be out of a job. That pretty much means he needs to keep Edler and means we may see a contract with no team discount and a NMC.

If he doesn't keep excitement for the future up he rates to be out of a job. That means we can pretty much forget about Quinn Hughes not getting a year of NHL service in this season.

Ugh.

 

[member 290103]

I'm disappointed that he wouldn't play 20 games elsewhere to help the team in the long run. It's his choice though and we have to respect it.

I don’t respect it. Not at all.

 

[member 290103]

No he won't.

He will get a 4 year contract with an NTC. Bennings dumber than a sack of hammers.

 

[ATypicalCanadian]

 

[PuckMunchkin]

He will get a 4 year contract with an NTC. Bennings dumber than a sack of hammers.

4-5 years, nmc, 5mil per.

 

[DonnyNucker]

4-5 years, nmc, 5mil per.

I’d be shocked if gets more than 3 years.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

No need rush
He’s not getting traded anyway, they have all those he time until July 1st

 

[Cupless44]

No need rush
He’s not getting traded anyway, they have all those he time until July 1st

Problem is after the trade deadline, Edler has even more leverage because he can walk and they get nothing. At his age though defencemen fall off a cliff very quickly and he is very injury prone. Very possible his good play this year will not continue at the same level.

In other words if he will not sign a team friendly deal to stay in the city he loves, let him walk. He is not as irreplaceable as some make it it out to be, just like the Sedins weren't. The team has been a bottom feeder with Edler, they will survive without him. Worst scenario is a deal with too much term. There are only 27 defencemen playing in the NHL at 33 or older.

 

[Blue and Green]

Problem is after the trade deadline, Edler has even more leverage because he can walk and they get nothing.

With a full NTC in place he already has that leverage.

 

[VanJack]

For a lot of pro hockey players, the Stanley Cup is the Holy Grail. When they finally get their name engraved on the Cup, their career is complete and considered a success. But apparently not for Alex Edler.

Let's face it, If he agreed to a trade to a team like the Lightning, the Leafs or the Caps, he might have a shot this spring at winning the whole thing. But by re-signing with the Canucks he has no chance of ever winning Lord Stanley's mug.

So at the end of the day, I guess he's OK with it. Maybe it's the European thing. World Championships and Olympic gold medals are more important anyway.

 

[NeoCanuck]

You'd think there would be some sort of two-way street with how absolutely clear Edler has been about wanting to stay in Vancouver, but Benning has just let Edler and his camp completely run the show. Edler has shown you his cards, now take advantage of it for the future of the team.

Edler says he wants to stay in Vancouver? Tell him you want him to waive his NTC for a few months, guaranteed re-sign on July 1st on a deal with higher than market value money, shorter term as compensation.
Edler says he doesn't want to move for a chance at a Stanley Cup? Question his desire to win a Cup. If his answer is that he wants to win a Cup in Vancouver, tell him the assets you get back from a deadline deal will make that more of a possibility for when he re-signs.
Edler says he doesn't want to waive his NTC? Tell him that coming back to the team isn't happening, throw that money towards Myers/Gardiner/Stralman and end the relationship.

Play at least a little hardball and stop putting your own assets on such an unmovable pedestal. It's as if we couldn't fathom how we could possibly find another top-4 defenceman not named Alexander Edler or Christopher Tanev through trades, free agency, waivers, college free agency, Europe or some type of Space Jam evil puck-magic.

 

[member 290103]

I’d be shocked if gets more than 3 years.

You must not be paying attention to Jim Benning's transaction history. Don't be shocked.

 

[vanarchy]

Problem is after the trade deadline, Edler has even more leverage because he can walk and they get nothing. At his age though defencemen fall off a cliff very quickly and he is very injury prone. Very possible his good play this year will not continue at the same level.

In other words if he will not sign a team friendly deal to stay in the city he loves, let him walk. He is not as irreplaceable as some make it it out to be, just like the Sedins weren't. The team has been a bottom feeder with Edler, they will survive without him. Worst scenario is a deal with too much term. There are only 27 defencemen playing in the NHL at 33 or older.

The entire thing is in his hands whether it's before or after the trade deadline. He holds all the cards.

 

[StreetHawk]

Problem is after the trade deadline, Edler has even more leverage because he can walk and they get nothing. At his age though defencemen fall off a cliff very quickly and he is very injury prone. Very possible his good play this year will not continue at the same level.

In other words if he will not sign a team friendly deal to stay in the city he loves, let him walk. He is not as irreplaceable as some make it it out to be, just like the Sedins weren't. The team has been a bottom feeder with Edler, they will survive without him. Worst scenario is a deal with too much term. There are only 27 defencemen playing in the NHL at 33 or older.

And only 8 older than Keith who is 35 turning 36 in July. Basically, this year for keith would be the same as Edler's 3rd year on an extension. The 8 older than Keith are JBo, Hamhuis, Seidenberg, Orpik, Chara, Hainsey, Kronwall, and Andy Greene. How many of these 8 would you want a $4.5 million plus cap hit?

It's not just about the here and now, it's figuring out how he will age over the term of the contract. They knew even when they signed Eriksson, that his play would drop, but never imagined he would give them next to nothing in years 1-3. These would be his best years and it's been horrible.

If he feels that he can get 3-4 years elsewhere, then he values that over remaining in vancouver. So be it. Again, do a shorter but higher cap hit deal and see how it does from there. Barring signing any big name in UFA, if they re-signed Boeser, Leivo, Hutton, Motte, Demko and co. they should be around $67 million against the cap. If they give Edler $6.5 mill per over 2 years that would take them to around $73.5 million. Can move out Sutter/Spooner/Gudbranson to free up some cap space if needed.

But if he is dead set on that 3rd year being protected with a NMC, you have to move on. even if he doesn't waive, you can't bite on that 3rd year.

 

[NeoCanuck]

The entire thing is in his hands whether it's before or after the trade deadline. He holds all the cards.

The only card you hold in this battle is that he's made it absolutely clear that he wants to stay in Vancouver, almost to a fault of his own.

You have to use that as your only chip. Tell him you want to trade him for assets and then re-sign on July 1st or tell him thank you for his years of play and move on.

 

[vanarchy]

The only card you hold in this battle is that he's made it absolutely clear that he wants to stay in Vancouver, almost to a fault of his own.

You have to use that as your only chip. Tell him you want to trade him for assets and then re-sign on July 1st or tell him thank you for his years of play and move on.

I don't think letting him walk is a realistic threat for this team given the state of the D core.