Confirmed with Link: Edler was asked to Waive NTC- Edler declined

[Hansen]

To begin with learning what the offer was would be interesting to see what Edler's value was and what could be defined as knocking our sock off, if it was actually good it would just feed in to my masochism as a Canucks fan like how we could have had a 1st + for Hamhuis if we were coordinated

Like imagine if Valimaki was on the table and Edler said no thanks because they called him last minute and tried to force his hand instead of working on it all year

 

[StreetHawk]

To begin with learning what the offer was would be interesting to see what Edler's value was and what could be defined as knocking our sock off, if it was actually good it would just feed in to my masochism as a Canucks fan like how we could have had a 1st + for Hamhuis if we were coordinated

Like imagine if Valimaki was on the table and Edler said no thanks because they called him last minute and tried to force his hand instead of working on it all year

Calgary was in on mark stone but their best offer apparently did not match Vegas.
Valimaki to match Brannstrom.
Draft pick for draft pick.
Lindbolm, Calgary needs a roster player the other way? Not a huge contract. Sam Bennett? Jankowski?

Calgary either would not do valimaki in the stone deal hard to imagine they do it for Edler.

 

[The Drop]

And how in the hell do you know that they only asked him “3 or 4 days ago?” And at no other time?

It's been reported. That's how the hell i know champ.

[MOD]

 

[Bleach Clean]

My opinions of he or Botch's views or attitudes are not why I don't accept their statements as necessarily being accurate. It's because:

- no one else in any market involved ever reports the same information;

- they cite no sources of any kind, even general ones like the management of a particular team, or an unspecified team, or a source close to any player involved or their agency;

- no reputable insider ever reports their information or confirms it despite having an interest in sharing the attention the information generates, and;

- Botch in particular has reported things that GMs involved have contradicted afterwards without being prompted to do so.

To be clear about what you are referring to here, you are talking about the validity to rumours, correct? The understanding being that rumours need not ever come to pass to be legitimately sourced.

1. Do you mean in the destination market involved in a trade rumour? Or, a corroborating source within the same market on any rumour? If it's within the same market, can you define what you mean by "no one"? Are you referring to a reporter, blogger, radio guy etc... When you clarify the type of source, I will do my best to provide a corroborating report.

2. Which insider provides a source/what are you comparing this to? And are you saying that Botchford _never_ provides a source?

3. What constitutes a "reputable insider" per your opinion? Further, when is a Vancouver Canucks Beat News Reporter ever not considered a reputable insider?

4. I'm just going to ignore this one because we both know GMs always tell the truth about everything, prompted or otherwise.

This is interesting to me. I know that we are not going to convince each other of Botchford's legitimacy as an insider because I know that nothing you say will properly assail his credentials as a News Reporter. Still, I'm willing to do the homework necessary to bring more facts to the discussion at hand. Maybe it changes the opinions of others reading this?

 

[bandwagonesque]

Still, I'm willing to do the homework necessary to bring more facts to the discussion at hand.

Do whatever you want, I really don't care.

Maybe it changes the opinions of others reading this?

How long have you been here?

 

[Bleach Clean]

Do whatever you want, I really don't care.

How long have you been here?

A long time...

Let's do this bandwagon. Just answer the preliminary questions posed and I'll do the rest.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Talking extension with Edler instead of pushing him to waive his NTC is a blunder. Not sure what you're arguing here.

As impressive as Hutton has been for us this year, do you honestly believe that he’d be suited to be a number one pairing dman on that left side? Because that is what you’d basically be asking Hutton to do if you let Edler walk.

Whether we like it or not, this team needs Alex Edler. Hughes will likely need to get his feet wet, while Hutton shouldn’t be any higher than a number two pairing. Letting Edler walk gives us almost zero room for injury (which is an unrealistic goal).

 

[bandwagonesque]

A long time...

Let's do this bandwagon. Just answer the preliminary questions posed and I'll do the rest.

We've tried. You don't know how. I gave up. There's no need to respond to this, by the way.

 

[RobertKron]

We've tried. You don't know how. I gave up. There's no need to respond to this, by the way.

Lol

 

[alternate]

Talking extension with Edler instead of pushing him to waive his NTC is a blunder. Not sure what you're arguing here.

No it's not. It's called doing due diligence. In fact, if anything the fact that the two parties couldn't come to an agreement on an extension could have given Edler an incentive to go elsewhere at the deadline. Knowing where the Canucks were as far as offers go may very well have been a push out the door without it being explicit.

We simply don't know how the negotiations went. What was the sticking point? Pretty clear that Edler has a wish list for his next contract that Benning hasn't matched, and Edler wouldn't waive unless the team he was going to was willing to check those boxes. Blaming Benning for not negotiating an acceptable contract for Edler and the Pens is a stretch, even for you.

 

[Bleach Clean]

We've tried. You don't know how. I gave up. There's no need to respond to this, by the way.

Oh I think that people here would beg to differ...

But anyways, like the last exchange, I'm willing to do the homework again. You've made claims that I think are eminently refutable. I just want to be sure that when I do refute them, that I am following agreed upon guidelines. Seems only fair.

 

[Bleach Clean]

No it's not. It's called doing due diligence. In fact, if anything the fact that the two parties couldn't come to an agreement on an extension could have given Edler an incentive to go elsewhere at the deadline. Knowing where the Canucks were as far as offers go may very well have been a push out the door without it being explicit.

We simply don't know how the negotiations went. What was the sticking point? Pretty clear that Edler has a wish list for his next contract that Benning hasn't matched, and Edler wouldn't waive unless the team he was going to was willing to check those boxes. Blaming Benning for not negotiating an acceptable contract for Edler and the Pens is a stretch, even for you.

Alternate, I don't want to get mired in the tangent discussion you and Y2K are having, but I want to pose this to you:

Do you think Benning dealt with Edler's situation early enough? Whether it was re-signing him or trading him? This has been a major criticism by Botchford and Paterson in their latest patcast and I wanted to know your thoughts on it?

 

[y2kcanucks]

You can’t push a ****ing rope. Edler has made it clear many times he likes it her and wants to stay. There are legitimate reasons to criticize Benning but this isn’t one.

Except it's also clear that he would have been willing to waive if the Canucks didn't have him in their plans. So yes, this is one valid criticism. Unlike you, I don't ignore the facts.

 

[y2kcanucks]

As impressive as Hutton has been for us this year, do you honestly believe that he’d be suited to be a number one pairing dman on that left side? Because that is what you’d basically be asking Hutton to do if you let Edler walk.

Whether we like it or not, this team needs Alex Edler. Hughes will likely need to get his feet wet, while Hutton shouldn’t be any higher than a number two pairing. Letting Edler walk gives us almost zero room for injury (which is an unrealistic goal).

If this really is a rebuild then yes. But because it's not a rebuild, and because Benning is so bad at his job, the Canucks management felt they needed to bring back a 33 year old injury prone defenseman. It's quite pathetic.

 

[Nomobo]

Except it's also clear that he would have been willing to waive if the Canucks didn't have him in their plans. So yes, this is one valid criticism. Unlike you, I don't ignore the facts.

You make up your very own facts in the vein of Miller for 9th OA.

 

[y2kcanucks]

No it's not. It's called doing due diligence. In fact, if anything the fact that the two parties couldn't come to an agreement on an extension could have given Edler an incentive to go elsewhere at the deadline. Knowing where the Canucks were as far as offers go may very well have been a push out the door without it being explicit.

We simply don't know how the negotiations went. What was the sticking point? Pretty clear that Edler has a wish list for his next contract that Benning hasn't matched, and Edler wouldn't waive unless the team he was going to was willing to check those boxes. Blaming Benning for not negotiating an acceptable contract for Edler and the Pens is a stretch, even for you.

Yes it is a blunder. And you want to talk about due diligence? Not sure you want to go there with your pro-Benning narrative. How about the lack of due diligence on their part to find out Edler's value on the trade market? Being floored by an offer they received on deadline day tells me they had no clue what his value was on the trade market. That's because their focus this whole time was on extending him. That's the blunder.

We do know how the negotiations went. Benning made it clear that he wants Edler back. That's enough for Edler to decide he doesn't want to waive. And it's been reported they already agreed to a 3-year term.

Absolving Benning of blame for not doing his job isn't a stretch, unfortunately, because people do it all the time.

 

[y2kcanucks]

You make up your very own facts in the vein of Miller for 9th OA.

So you're saying I work for Canucks Army and made that report up and wrote that in there so I could make Benning look bad?



Just because you don't like a report doesn't mean it's fake. I get there's a trend that started south of the border where people scream fake news at anything they don't like, but c'mon, let's be smarter than that.

 

[Horse McHindu]

If this really is a rebuild then yes. But because it's not a rebuild, and because Benning is so bad at his job, the Canucks management felt they needed to bring back a 33 year old injury prone defenseman. It's quite pathetic.

Even in a rebuild, you have to take care of the current young players in the system.

What purpose does it serve to throw Hutton to the wolves by trading Edler? Hutton, god bless him, has worked his way up to become a decent 2nd pairing dman, but do you really want to see him getting trounced as a regular 1st pairing dman? What happens if he gets injured? Do you put a green Hughes or a Pouliot there?

Same thing with Markstrom. You don’t just trade away Markstrom because his value his high and he’s at a certain age. You protect the players within your system.

For instance - where is Demko in his development? Would he be ready to take on the responsibilities of a number one goalie? If he’s a semi-passable number one in two years but our defense is still weak, are you doing Demko justice by making him the #1?.......and playing him behind a weak defense? What impact would throw have on Demko? What impact would this have on the defensemen on the team?

A rebuild entails far more than trading anyone and everyone who is aged 26 and over for draft picks. It’s about cultivating your current prospects, and placing them in roles that will push them........but not over exert them. Once a young player is atleast 90% ready to fill a role, THEN you move a vet to create space (as the Canucks did with Bieksa, Hansen, Burrows, and Gagner).

If a team doesn’t adhere to the above, then all they are doing is pouring water into a bucket with a hole in it.

 

[racerjoe]

You make up your very own facts in the vein of Miller for 9th OA.

Can you and the other posters Denying this just stop? This is the biggest move the goalposts topic ever. You just bring it up when you can’t say anything to respond. In the end if you believe it or not doesn’t matter. The report exists and from a legit source. You are only making yourselves sound ignorant bringing it up.

If you want people to not believe it, show a valid source refuting this.

For the record I don’t think this trade was as simple as it gets posted here, but I also think there is truth to it.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

You know, though, that there will still be those who blame Benning for all this.

Dont worry. You will be here, ever vigilant.

 

[strattonius]

Gonna have to side with y2k on this one.

I dont want the Canucks to be handcuffed to sign Edler. We needed to move on from Edler and it should've been communicated from the start we didnt intend on re-signing him. A sign and trade under this scenario is a lot more attainable- and if that's the case, target a young defenseman with some upside. The market for a rental defenseman like Edler is high.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Edler just exercised his contractual rights, I don't fault Benning too much for this one (unless the rumour about Edler wanting to go to a contender is true, and Benning just Hamhuis'd this deadline). But if he ends up re-signing Edler for more than two years with a NTC, with the expansion draft coming up... then that's pretty unforgiving. Hopefully he gets two years with a cap hit of around $6.5 mill tops. Don't give him a NTC/NMC so a more competent GM can deal him on his second year after Benning gets torched.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Edler just exercised his contractual rights, I don't fault Benning too much for this one (unless the rumour about Edler wanting to go to a contender is true, and Benning just Hamhuis'd this deadline). But if he ends up re-signing Edler for more than two years with a NTC, with the expansion draft coming up... then that's pretty unforgiving. Hopefully he gets two years with a cap hit of around $6.5 mill tops. Don't give him a NTC/NMC so a more competent GM can deal him on his second year after Benning gets torched.

Sorry I've missed this. Where was this rumur?

 

[carolinacanuck]

So the deadline approaches, teams call Benning to ask if Edler is available. Benning says hold on a minute, goes and asks Edler's agent if he'll waive. Agent says no. Sorry, nothing you can do about it, there were no options!

That's just a failure. You can't wait till the teams come to you then ask at the last minute, you have to be proactive on these things. If you have a good quality vet on the last year of his deal, no extension in place and your playoff chances are iffy, of course teams are going to come asking about him at the deadline. Sometimes a player won't waive regardless but this should be cleared with him and his agent ahead of time, like when you're talking about an extension and nothings happened yet.

Feels like we've been through this situation before already...

leading up to the deadline, Edler made it perfectly clear in the press he wasn't gonna waive. there really was no reason for benning to reach out to the agent ahead of time, especially if no offers were on the table.

hey, will you waive your ntc? are there offers on the table? well, no...just wondering if you will if the right deal comes? call us if you get one.

offers come in late that are appealing to benning so then he contacts the agent/player and says here's what we have. player/agent don't like the destination/lack of extension and say no.

that's how i read it.

 

[stampedingviking]

Even in a rebuild, you have to take care of the current young players in the system.

What purpose does it serve to throw Hutton to the wolves by trading Edler? Hutton, god bless him, has worked his way up to become a decent 2nd pairing dman, but do you really want to see him getting trounced as a regular 1st pairing dman? What happens if he gets injured? Do you put a green Hughes or a Pouliot there?

Same thing with Markstrom. You don’t just trade away Markstrom because his value his high and he’s at a certain age. You protect the players within your system.

For instance - where is Demko in his development? Would he be ready to take on the responsibilities of a number one goalie? If he’s a semi-passable number one in two years but our defense is still weak, are you doing Demko justice by making him the #1?.......and playing him behind a weak defense? What impact would throw have on Demko? What impact would this have on the defensemen on the team?

A rebuild entails far more than trading anyone and everyone who is aged 26 and over for draft picks. It’s about cultivating your current prospects, and placing them in roles that will push them........but not over exert them. Once a young player is atleast 90% ready to fill a role, THEN you move a vet to create space (as the Canucks did with Bieksa, Hansen, Burrows, and Gagner).

If a team doesn’t adhere to the above, then all they are doing is pouring water into a bucket with a hole in it.

Stop using logic, it doesn't work on certain posters.