Confirmed with Link: Canucks re-sign D Alex Edler to 2-Year, $6M AAV Deal

iceburg

Don't ask why
Aug 31, 2003
7,603
3,959
Great deal (without qualification).
I wonder when (or if) Benning can ever get to the point where a great deal isn't qualified with a "yeah, but what about...". He has made some terrible deals for sure. Just wondering if he will be able to get past those black marks with some good/great signings like this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daddyohsix

Nomobo

Registered User
Feb 20, 2015
6,136
2,857
Victoria
Great deal (without qualification).
I wonder when (or if) Benning can ever get to the point where a great deal isn't qualified with a "yeah, but what about...". He has made some terrible deals for sure. Just wondering if he will be able to get past those black marks with some good/great signings like this one.
Never happen, that would be the end of the crow species.
 

1440

Registered User
Feb 20, 2013
475
969
I personally don't give much credit to Benning here. This was a slam dunk contract or at least it should have been. Pay the man a fair amount and ONLY have to give 2 years is almost best case scenario for Canucks. 6 million is an underpayment. So if reports were true that both sides were not close for some time then either the Canucks were seriously low balling Edler or Edler caved into accepting 2 years. If the Canucks were low balling then Benning is a fool.

If I was Edler I would be insulted by anything less than the accepted offer. He would have easily gotten more money and term from another team. If the Canucks did low ball then they should be ashamed and they were very lucky he did not walk.

Only credit I might give Benning is if he stood firm on not having it impact the expansion draft, but to me that is a no brainer.

Should not have been a difficult deal at all.

Look, I understand where you are coming from with the notion that low-balling makes no sense if the difference was between, say 5-7M/yr; but, if the "low balling" was instead the difference between 2 or 3+ years NMC term, then that "low balling" was absolutely essential to minimizing the Canucks' vulnerability at the upcoming expansion draft.

Given that the most significant changes to the rumors swirling the last couple of days were to the length of term and length of NMC, it seems more likely that term was the sticking point.

I don't know or care how much Benning had to do with this contract, but your ridiculous attempts to frame it as a "Benning loss" are revealing of a cancerous bias in your thought process.

A more reasonable tact of putting down this contract would be to suggest instead that Edler is not good enough (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9hVcqSX4AAlgoZ.png) to be worthy of this much money. That is also flawed in that there is a large disconnect between worth (value as a player) and perceived worth (estimated contract value) in the NHL's free-agent market.
 

MikeK

Registered User
Nov 10, 2008
10,614
4,063
Earth
Love this deal based on term alone. It uses up money that would otherwise be pissed away on bad UFA deals and doesn't hamstring us when our kids get paid. Actually quite shocked at the term. I was fully expecting a 4 or even a 5 year deal. This is a pretty good deal for the team and it's obvious how much Edler had no desire to play anywhere else because I can't believe for a second he couldn't get more term on the open market.
 

1440

Registered User
Feb 20, 2013
475
969
Weirdly he does a decent job extending the players who were not his own acquisitions.

As is the case for all contract negotiators. Past negotiations between two parties invariably impact future negotiations between those same parties. This fact is one of the stronger arguments for regime change for the sake of change itself.
 

Chimpradamus

Registered User
Feb 16, 2006
16,634
5,249
Northern Sweden
Don't only praise Benning, also praise Edler for reaching out a hand to solve this for a good future for the Canucks. They both deserve some credit IMO. Edler is a Swede, we're usually very loyal when we think we have found a home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: geebaan and Nomobo

xtra

Registered User
May 19, 2002
8,323
4,765
Vancouver
Visit site
Great deal (without qualification).
I wonder when (or if) Benning can ever get to the point where a great deal isn't qualified with a "yeah, but what about...". He has made some terrible deals for sure. Just wondering if he will be able to get past those black marks with some good/great signings like this one.

I legit said that above; and so have a few people.
 

rypper

21-12-05 it's finally over.
Dec 22, 2006
16,200
19,946
Great term, money, and no expansion draft implications. What's not to like?
 

TraderJim

Um.. like.. you know
Apr 18, 2006
1,103
1,502
Great deal (without qualification).
I wonder when (or if) Benning can ever get to the point where a great deal isn't qualified with a "yeah, but what about...". He has made some terrible deals for sure. Just wondering if he will be able to get past those black marks with some good/great signings like this one.
I despise Benning. This is a good signing.
 

Billy Kvcmu

Registered User
Dec 5, 2014
27,125
15,440
West Vancouver
Apparently he has a full NMC, guess that’s the key of 2 years term, not gonna worry too much, at this point I don’t think anyone will trade him without his permission
 
  • Like
Reactions: geebaan

Slurpeelover27

Unleash the MaKaraken!!!
Mar 7, 2018
711
774
British Columbia
Look, I understand where you are coming from with the notion that low-balling makes no sense if the difference was between, say 5-7M/yr; but, if the "low balling" was instead the difference between 2 or 3+ years NMC term, then that "low balling" was absolutely essential to minimizing the Canucks' vulnerability at the upcoming expansion draft.

Given that the most significant changes to the rumors swirling the last couple of days were to the length of term and length of NMC, it seems more likely that term was the sticking point.

I don't know or care how much Benning had to do with this contract, but your ridiculous attempts to frame it as a "Benning loss" are revealing of a cancerous bias in your thought process.

A more reasonable tact of putting down this contract would be to suggest instead that Edler is not good enough (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9hVcqSX4AAlgoZ.png) to be worthy of this much money. That is also flawed in that there is a large disconnect between worth (value as a player) and perceived worth (estimated contract value) in the NHL's free-agent market.


Unless you misread my statement or are confusing my post with someone else's then your criticism is very puzzling. Cancerous bias?

Not sure where I said or implied anything about this being a "Benning loss". The low balling I was referring to was in regards to dollar amount, not term. I even said that Benning should obviously stick to his guns and make sure that the Canucks would not need to protect him in the expansion draft.

The rumours that the sticking point was about term are just that - rumours and they could be wrong. That is why I addressed the 2 most likely scenarios given the rumours and what seems reasonable. If it was all about term then I absolutely agreed that Benning should stick to the 2 years IF a NMC was necessary. However, if the sticking point was money than shame on Benning if he would only give in to 6 million for 2 years just recently.

As for your argument about worth. A players value is whatever any team is willing to offer said player. If any team in the league was willing to offer Edler 10 million a year for 7 years then he his value is 10 x 7yrs. Any team that does not feel the same can obviously choose not to match or make a similar offer. Ask any sports talk host or anyone who is paid to evaluate players if they believe Edler would have received offers with more term and dollars had he hit free agency and I would bet anything that overwhelmingly most would have said yes.

Also I don't understand where I 'put down' this contract. It is a home run contract from the Canucks point of view. Edler is being underpaid for a 2 year contract. Canucks got everything they need from it and paid less than market value.
 

Carnal

Registered User
May 29, 2018
228
251
Good deal. Perhaps three of Bennings best moves as our GM is the re-signings of Tanev, Horvat and now Edler.

I will stick to this positive and stay away from asking why he signed the garbage contracts for Gudbranson and Sutter who were also Canucks property when re-signed. Oops.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zombotron

PuckMunchkin

Very Nice, Very Evil!
Dec 13, 2006
12,219
9,932
Lapland
It doesn't really matter what WE think. Other teams would most certainly have been willing to offer more term and money. That is what determines his true value.

No. That determines his market value. That would have been gross overpayment in WAR terms.

By your logic Loui Eriksson got a deal that was true to his value.
 
Last edited:

Phenomenon13

Registered User
Oct 10, 2011
2,479
496
This deal is a homerun. He got pretty much everything we could ask for. Benning gets an A for this negotiation deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F A N

RandV

It's a wolf v2.0
Jul 29, 2003
26,831
4,924
Vancouver
Visit site
Great deal (without qualification).
I wonder when (or if) Benning can ever get to the point where a great deal isn't qualified with a "yeah, but what about...". He has made some terrible deals for sure. Just wondering if he will be able to get past those black marks with some good/great signings like this one.

So many different reports came out that we don't know exactly what went down with the process, but at the end of the day Benning gets to wear this one as a win. But for what you're saying it doesn't help that Edler is probably our easiest guy to negotiate with and we still have Eriksson/Spooner/Beagle/etc on the roster.

There are much better grades to scale him on coming up: signing Boeser and to a lesser extent Hutton, what kind of trades he can pull off to improve the team, what he does in UFA, and how well he can clean up the mess of contracts on the team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PuckMunchkin

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->