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

Status
Not open for further replies.

alternate

Win the week!
Jun 9, 2006
8,019
2,855
victoria
If it's 3 yrs / $15m you take that deal no problem. Less % of the cap that he's making now and he's still the best defenceman we have. Over the course of those 3 years, if other players don't pass him on the depth chart, nothing will really matter anyway as we won't be competing.

I don't even care about about a NMC. Deal with it if it's an issue (prefer not to have one of course, but not too concerned). If that's the end deal, hard to take seriously any posters saying it would be better to just walk away.
 

BROCK HUGHES

Registered User
Jun 3, 2006
3,450
582
Victoria bc/red deer alberta
Edler has played in over 70 games one time since 2010. He's 33. Signing him to a longterm deal will be a killer.

Benning should be positiong himself to make it look like the Canucks are moving on after this season and hope Edler will be willing to waive at the TDL. We're still so far away from being a cup contender, we need future assets and Edler is one of the only few players remaining who could bring us back anything of significance.

This would take a little bit of thought and gamesmanship on Bennings part which makes it highly unlikely it'll happen.
He either takes a short term deal or move on from him.The defense on this team really needs to be gutted and new guys brought in.Hughes as a building block is a good start.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
If it's 3 yrs / $15m you take that deal no problem. Less % of the cap that he's making now and he's still the best defenceman we have. Over the course of those 3 years, if other players don't pass him on the depth chart, nothing will really matter anyway as we won't be competing.

I don't even care about about a NMC. Deal with it if it's an issue (prefer not to have one of course, but not too concerned). If that's the end deal, hard to take seriously any posters saying it would be better to just walk away.

3 years with NMC is something you walk away from. You can say it's hard to take seriously any posters who say it would be better to just walk away, but you're wrong. It would be better to just walk away from a contract that forces expansion draft protection. Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Consistencee

alternate

Win the week!
Jun 9, 2006
8,019
2,855
victoria
3 years with NMC is something you walk away from. You can say it's hard to take seriously any posters who say it would be better to just walk away, but you're wrong. It would be better to just walk away from a contract that forces expansion draft protection. Period.

No, it wouldn't. Not even close. The "next core" is mostly in the organization now...time to start improving the on ice play every year. Unless you are going to acquire an Edler replacement (who? how?) walking away hurts the short term competitiveness and could have negative consequences on Petterson, Hughes, etc. Cultivating the next core should be all that matters now...letting Edler walk for nothing hurts more than some hypothetical Bieksa situation that might or might not emerge.
 

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
If it's 3 yrs / $15m you take that deal no problem. Less % of the cap that he's making now and he's still the best defenceman we have. Over the course of those 3 years, if other players don't pass him on the depth chart, nothing will really matter anyway as we won't be competing.

I don't even care about about a NMC. Deal with it if it's an issue (prefer not to have one of course, but not too concerned). If that's the end deal, hard to take seriously any posters saying it would be better to just walk away.
You not caring about a NMC just shows you don't actually care about anything. A NMC exposes Hughes, Stecher, or Hutton....when Edler would be 35.

So you should probably either educate yourself on the impact of these clauses or don't get on your high horse when folks are discussing chess while you're playing jacks in the driveway.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
No, it wouldn't. Not even close. The "next core" is mostly in the organization now...time to start improving the on ice play every year. Unless you are going to acquire an Edler replacement (who? how?) walking away hurts the short term competitiveness and could have negative consequences on Petterson, Hughes, etc. Cultivating the next core should be all that matters now...letting Edler walk for nothing hurts more than some hypothetical Bieksa situation that might or might not emerge.

If the next core is mostly in the organization now then this team is more f***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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MisfortuneCookie

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
No, it wouldn't. Not even close. The "next core" is mostly in the organization now...time to start improving the on ice play every year. Unless you are going to acquire an Edler replacement (who? how?) walking away hurts the short term competitiveness and could have negative consequences on Petterson, Hughes, etc. Cultivating the next core should be all that matters now...letting Edler walk for nothing hurts more than some hypothetical Bieksa situation that might or might not emerge.
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.
 

Consistencee

Registered User
Feb 23, 2017
98
177
Love that the same people that bitched about Gillis' NMC (including Edler's which was a value contract at the time in the prime of his career ) now say if Benning signs one during the timeline of an expansion draft when he's way older is no big deal.
 

mathonwy

Positively #toxic
Jan 21, 2008
19,034
9,951
it's a f*cking joke!

Bennings complete incompetence as a NHL GM has painted this franchise straight into a corner with this player.

I'm fully expecting a big fat retirement contract...6 mill x 5 years is my guess.
This crap show is of their own making.
 
  • Like
Reactions: y2kcanucks

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
How is it a pressure point if they are actively talking about offers? A pressure point is "we are not talking to you prior to the deadline. If you will not provide us a list of acceptable teams then when we find a deal we like we will bring it to you to see if you'll waive. After the deadline and heading into the summer we can talk further after we assess the direction of the team and our future plans." It should be what they do anyways but at least try to put the ball in the Edler's court to low ball himself of he wants to stay.
 
Last edited:

dwarf

Registered User
Feb 13, 2007
1,942
229
Victoria, B.C.
I hope they move him. Alex deserves a shot at a cup somewhere. Even if he does not have the drive to win one and wants to stay.
 

VanJack

Registered User
Jul 11, 2014
21,047
14,079
Apparently back in the day Edler took a home-town discount to stay in VanCity, but the price to be paid was a NMC in his contract. I suppose these kind of contracts can be justified for a team that fancies itself a contender.

But for a team in the throes of a rebuild, they're an albatross. In any other NHL market Edler would have been shipped out long ago as a valuable trading piece for picks and prospects to hasten the rebuild.

I suppose the only 'positive' is that he appears set to re-sign instead of testing free agency. And Benning appears to learned a valuable lesson. He won't be nearly as loose with NTC's as Gillis was.
 

Consistencee

Registered User
Feb 23, 2017
98
177
Apparently back in the day Edler took a home-town discount to stay in VanCity, but the price to be paid was a NMC in his contract. I suppose these kind of contracts can be justified for a team that fancies itself a contender.

But for a team in the throes of a rebuild, they're an albatross. In any other NHL market Edler would have been shipped out long ago as a valuable trading piece for picks and prospects to hasten the rebuild.

I suppose the only 'positive' is that he appears set to re-sign instead of testing free agency. And Benning appears to learned a valuable lesson. He won't be nearly as loose with NTC's as Gillis was.

"He won't be nearly as loose with NTC's as Gillis was."

I have some bad news for you...
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
Apparently back in the day Edler took a home-town discount to stay in VanCity, but the price to be paid was a NMC in his contract. I suppose these kind of contracts can be justified for a team that fancies itself a contender.

But for a team in the throes of a rebuild, they're an albatross. In any other NHL market Edler would have been shipped out long ago as a valuable trading piece for picks and prospects to hasten the rebuild.

I suppose the only 'positive' is that he appears set to re-sign instead of testing free agency. And Benning appears to learned a valuable lesson. He won't be nearly as loose with NTC's as Gillis was.

When you look at it in the context that this was never a rebuild, it makes a lot more sense.

And you're wrong about Benning not being loose with NTC's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tantalum

alternate

Win the week!
Jun 9, 2006
8,019
2,855
victoria
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.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
Lol, you are funny!

Benning needs to dump Petterson, Boeser, Horvat, Gaudette, Hughes, Juolevi, Markstrom/Demko and get that rebuild started all ready!

Markstrom is almost 30...he's not part of a future core.

Hughes isn't on the team yet.

Juolevi isn't on the team yet, and there's a good chance he never makes it as a top 4 defenseman.

If that's all there is to the core, we'll be a perennial mediocre team. There isn't enough there to build a championship team. But hey, come up with a stupid line about trading all those as if it adds to the discussion. That's right up there with saying we should give Edler a NMC so we can lose a younger, better defenseman in 2 years.


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.

It's called looking ahead and pre-planning. Prioritizing a 33 year old defenseman is just plain stupid. It's a failure that Benning isn't trading him, and it's an even bigger failure if he gives him a NMC. Though as one of Benning's biggest apologists it doesn't surprise me that you're floating this excuse already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MisfortuneCookie

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
You not caring about a NMC just shows you don't actually care about anything. A NMC exposes Hughes, Stecher, or Hutton....when Edler would be 35.

So you should probably either educate yourself on the impact of these clauses or don't get on your high horse when folks are discussing chess while you're playing jacks in the driveway.

If you don't want to protect him the most logical thing to do is to not sign him. I'm guessing that the NMC is worth 1-2 million in AAV, or one extra year you are going to have to give him in exchange for not giving him an NMC.
 

member 290103

Guest
If it's 3 yrs / $15m you take that deal no problem. Less % of the cap that he's making now and he's still the best defenceman we have. Over the course of those 3 years, if other players don't pass him on the depth chart, nothing will really matter anyway as we won't be competing.

I don't even care about about a NMC. Deal with it if it's an issue (prefer not to have one of course, but not too concerned). If that's the end deal, hard to take seriously any posters saying it would be better to just walk away.

So you don’t care about giving Hutton or Stecher to Seattle because you are forced to protect an aging injury riddled Dman in the last few years of playing career?

Seriously. There MUST be no NTC. MUST.
 

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
If you don't want to protect him the most logical thing to do is to not sign him. I'm guessing that the NMC is worth 1-2 million in AAV, or one extra year you are going to have to give him in exchange for not giving him an NMC.
Really? I think the full NTC does everything it needs to do to appease both sides here.

3 years, team can leave him unprotected in expansion and he still has the power to force a trade to a preferred destination. I'm not really seeing why a NMC would be required, unless he feels they'll Gagner him to the minors....but I can't see his game falling off that serious of a cliff in 3 years and if injuries shorten his career LTIR and spend the money somewhere else.

I think you need to account for having 3 better defensman in 3 years time worth protecting, and I don't understand your point about he has to be worthy of protection or don't sign....that doesn't make sense to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lupuls Grit

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,629
5,893
"He won't be nearly as loose with NTC's as Gillis was."

I have some bad news for you...

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, even when NMCs/NTCs are given out, it does taper off towards the end. Gudbranson also didn't get any sort of NTC protection.

My guess is that if Edler signs for more than 2 years, he will have at least a full NTC covering the first and second years. I agree that having to protect him from the expansion draft should be a nonstarter.
 

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
27,000
6,572
Really? I think the full NTC does everything it needs to do to appease both sides here.


Correct me if I'm wrong here, a full NTC doesn't protect Edler from getting scooped up in the Expansion Draft, correct?

If so, then that would not appease his side because the primary motivation is to stay in Vancouver for the duration.
 

Bettman Returnz

Why so serious?
Jul 28, 2003
4,788
2,675
BC
Visit site
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->