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

[ChilliBilly]

Coming from you? Seriously?

Anyhow, is it not clear to everyone that Edler would like to stay, but will move ONCE. So no he will not be a rental. To waive it must include a decent long term package with at least a NTC.

I hope he comes back. For 2 years. At a decent discount.

 

[ChilliBilly]

Coming from you? Seriously?

Anyhow, is it not clear to everyone that Edler would like to stay, but will move ONCE. So no he will not be a rental. To waive it must include a decent long term package with at least a NTC.

I hope he comes back. For 2 years. At a decent discount.

 

[ChilliBilly]

Sorry. Have no idea why this posted 3timmes . IPad in Cabo.

 

[ChilliBilly]

Sorry. Have no idea why this posted 3timmes . IPad in Cabo.

 

[Horse McHindu]

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

I mean, these posters are all smart, passionate, and knowledgeable (which is why I love being here) but I just think their approach to a rebuild is misguided at times. Rebuilding isn’t as simple as “hey, let’s trade everyone that is aged 26 and over and stockpile picks.” If it sounds too easy to be true, it usually is.

A few years ago for instance - yeah, we would have gotten a lot more for Edler and Tanev via trade, but we literally had NO ONE that would’ve been able to step up and fill those shoes to even a marginal degree.

Yes - it is entirely possible for a team to completely and utterly Tank for a year via veteran sell off and accumulate a franchise player, but more times than not, that strategy ends in abject failure.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Apparently on twitter John Jang is reporting that the offer was Oliver Kylington and a mid-round pick for Edler. Yeah that's a blunder.

 

[Josepho]

that's a pretty lame offer to be "blown away" by

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

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

It was from one of the local writers. Something about Edler potentially waiving if it was to a contender with an extension already worked out.

 

[y2kcanucks]

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

The problem is, the post you quoted is devoid of logic. Does it make sense to not throw untested rookies to the wolves? No. But is Ben Hutton an untested rookie? Nope. He's 25 and will be 26 in just over a month. It's not like he's going to be shellshocked or anything. And in fact, he's been thrust into top pair duty while Edler has been injured, and has played well. If this is a rebuild, hoarding veterans isn't the way to go. But then again a lot of pro-Benning supporters don't understand this and often time look out for how to explain what he does with a positive spin. Ignoring the negative results in the process.

 

[y2kcanucks]

that's a pretty lame offer to be "blown away" by

Yes. But still a blunder. I'd rather have the 21 year old defenseman instead of a 33 year old defenseman.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Apparently on twitter John Jang is reporting that the offer was Oliver Kylington and a mid-round pick for Edler. Yeah that's a blunder.

That's pretty bad if true and not worth 11 pages of hysterics.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

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

Ah. I see youve discovered irony.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I mean, these posters are all smart, passionate, and knowledgeable (which is why I love being here) but I just think their approach to a rebuild is misguided at times. Rebuilding isn’t as simple as “hey, let’s trade everyone that is aged 26 and over and stockpile picks.” If it sounds too easy to be true, it usually is.

A few years ago for instance - yeah, we would have gotten a lot more for Edler and Tanev via trade, but we literally had NO ONE that would’ve been able to step up and fill those shoes to even a marginal degree.

Yes - it is entirely possible for a team to completely and utterly Tank for a year via veteran sell off and accumulate a franchise player, but more times than not, that strategy ends in abject failure.

You are missing a very key point here.

Situation 1.

You have Tanev & Edler. They are good.
You keep Tanev & Edler. They play fine.
You still have Tanev & Edler. They get old. They play poorly.
You don't compete for a cup for the duration they are good for you, then they are gone.

Situation 2.

You have Tanve & Edler. They are good.
You trade one of Tanev / Edler while they still hold value.
In summer you go after a free agent D man like Calvin de Haan, Brandon Manning or Nick Holden
You now how Tanev / Edler & de Haan / Manning / Holden and you have what the trade brought in.
Now repeat this process enough and you accumulate assets instead of letting them rot or leak.

Think of it as having an account that pays interest vs one that doesn't.

 

[Josepho]

Yes. But still a blunder. I'd rather have the 21 year old defenseman instead of a 33 year old defenseman.

I wouldn't dump a (still useful) player who's devoted the last 12 years to this franchise for a pile of shit like that. Pretty much as insulting as the Motte/Jokinen offer.

There must've been something better out there.

 

[MS]

I wouldn't dump a (still useful) player who's devoted the last 12 years to this franchise for a pile of **** like that. Pretty much as insulting as the Motte/Jokinen offer.

There must've been something better out there.

Just said the same thing in the other thread.

That’s a godawful return and there’s no way it should have even been considered, much less ‘blown away’ the GM.

 

[bandwagonesque]

The problem is, the post you quoted is devoid of logic. Does it make sense to not throw untested rookies to the wolves? No. But is Ben Hutton an untested rookie? Nope. He's 25 and will be 26 in just over a month. It's not like he's going to be shellshocked or anything. And in fact, he's been thrust into top pair duty while Edler has been injured, and has played well. If this is a rebuild, hoarding veterans isn't the way to go. But then again a lot of pro-Benning supporters don't understand this and often time look out for how to explain what he does with a positive spin. Ignoring the negative results in the process.

He was probably referring to Hughes and Juolevi. I know you're intelligent enough to have understood this.

 

[opendoor]

Just said the same thing in the other thread.

That’s a godawful return and there’s no way it should have even been considered, much less ‘blown away’ the GM.

If that offer blew Benning away, imagine what he goes into negotiations asking for. No wonder he loses pretty much every transaction. That story about the McCann/Gudbranson negotiation sounds more and more plausible.

 

[VanJack]

Edler refusing to waive is his right......but unless the guy is prepared to accept a home-town discount and a two year deal on July 1st, then the Canucks have the right to just let him walk.

They should use Edler's money to try and lure Tryamkin back from the KHL. A younger d-man who hopefully wouldn't have Edler's crippling injury history.

 

[MS]

If that offer blew Benning away, imagine what he goes into negotiations asking for. No wonder he loses pretty much every transaction. That story about the McCann/Gudbranson negotiation sounds more and more plausible.

Oh, that Florida story 100% happened. There have been too many other similar things :

- Benning (on video) having to be pushed by his staff to ask for an extra pick in the Kesler deal - which of course got.

- reports that he could have had Vatanen in the Kesler but instead targeted Sbisa, a healthy scratch making $3 million.

- Calgary’s GM being blown away by the offer for Baertschi and commenting that no other offer was even close.

- Dorsett’s agent commenting how easy the negotiation was for his ridiculous extension.

... and others.

 

[Fire Benning]

That rumoured package from Calgary sucks. Don't how that shocked the canucks in terms of Edler's value, although they're awful at evaluating talent so I guess it makes sense.

 

[Hansen]

They couldnt believe anyone valued Edler that much

Kylington and a mid round pick

LOL

 

[VanJack]

They couldnt believe anyone valued Edler that much

Kylington and a mid round pick

LOL

If those were seriously the kind of assets Treliving was offering up at the TDL, no wonder Calgary couldn't get anything done.

 

[y2kcanucks]

He was probably referring to Hughes and Juolevi. I know you're intelligent enough to have understood this.

This is where reading actually helps:

What purpose does it serve to throw Hutton to the wolves by trading Edler?

But hey, keep taking your runs at me.

 

[Horse McHindu]

You are missing a very key point here.

Situation 1.

You have Tanev & Edler. They are good.
You keep Tanev & Edler. They play fine.
You still have Tanev & Edler. They get old. They play poorly.
You don't compete for a cup for the duration they are good for you, then they are gone.

Situation 2.

You have Tanve & Edler. They are good.
You trade on of Tanev / Edler while they still hold value.
In summer you go after a free agent D man like Calvin de Haan, Brandon Manning or Nick Holden
You now how Tanev / Edler & de Haan / Manning / Holden and you have what the trade brought in.
Now repeat this process enough and you accumulate assets instead of letting them rot or leak.

Think of it as having an account that pays interest vs one that doesn't.

It’s a fair enough point you make, but what guarantee do you have that those free agents sign? Can guys like dehaan, Holden, and Manning fill the shoes of Tanev and be capable of playing on a top pairing?

 

[PuckMunchkin]

It’s a fair enough point you make, but what guarantee do you have that those free agents sign? Can guys like dehaan, Holden, and Manning fill the shoes of Tanev and be capable of playing on a top pairing?

What happens if they are not as good on the top pairing? What do we lose?

In 1. we can only lose.
In 2. we are sure to hold a piece of the value of the traded player. We risk being worse short term, thats what rebuilding is all about.

 

[Addison Rae]

He was probably referring to Hughes and Juolevi. I know you're intelligent enough to have understood this.

Wrong as usual.