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

[Phenomenon13]

They couldnt believe anyone valued Edler that much

Kylington and a mid round pick

LOL

Where did you get this info?

 

[Cancuks]

This team plays better without Edler and Tanev in the lineup.

 

[DomY]

They should use Edler's money to try and lure Tryamkin back from the KHL.

I always assumed Tryamkin made decent money in the KHL, but I found a list of the top 30 KHL salaries (from a few years ago, but after Tryamkin went back) and he wasn't on it. The 30th highest salary was only the equivalent of like $1.2M USD.

I know in the KHL you have to buy yourself out at 2/3's of the cost. I think Tryamkin only has one year left, so his buyout would be maybe $800k? Give the guy a 2 year deal for $6M and a $3M signing bonus, $1.5M/yr salary. Tryamkin buys himself out and gets to be part of the solution.

 

[DomY]

Where did you get this info?

I heard the same as it was reported by Sat Shah and Jawn Jang on Sportsnet 650 in the morning yesterday. They said they heard it from their colleagues in Calgary. There might have been a conditional pick attached to it but they couldn't confirm that part.

Kylington isn't anything to get excited about.

 

[Horse McHindu]

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.

Losing is ok, but what is NOT ok is having the young guys on your team lose confidence due to them playing roles that are way above their heads.

For instance - even though the Canucks have been losing for the last three years, guys like Horvat, Markstrom, Hutton, Stecher, Motte, Leivo, and even Virtanen saw growth in their games because they played in roles that were suited to their games. You can even use Baertschi as an example.

Earlier this year, posters on here sulked when Gaudette was sent down to the farm, but the experience down there really helped Gaudette......and now he’s ready to be here.

In a situation like this - even if the team is losing and increasing their lottery odds in the process, the existing young players on the team are also growing as players so that they can grow into more integral roles as they prove themselves.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Losing is ok, but what is NOT ok is having the young guys on your team lose confidence due to them playing roles that are way above their heads.

For instance - even though the Canucks have been losing for the last three years, guys like Horvat, Markstrom, Hutton, Stecher, Motte, Leivo, and even Virtanen saw growth in their games because they played in roles that were suited to their games. You can even use Baertschi as an example.

Earlier this year, posters on here sulked when Gaudette was sent down to the farm, but the experience down there really helped Gaudette......and now he’s ready to be here.

In a situation like this - even if the team is losing and increasing their lottery odds in the process, the existing young players on the team are also growing as players so that they can grow into more integral roles as they prove themselves.

The players in question are gone ½ the year anyways now that we've waited so long to move away from them. Tanev is amongst the league leaders taking hits for the past few years.

Talented players don't need to be sheltered. See Boeser & Pettersson for instance.

But lets say you are correct and all kids need to be sheltered at first, you can actually accomplish both.

Move away from aging assets, while retaining as much value as possible in your organisation.
Acquire players who are not in your long term plans. Play them in those roles. If they fail, its fine, it is a rebuilding year and you are not invested in their success long term. If they succeed, awesome you can move them for something when the prospects are ready to take their place.

And yes. It can be difficult to acquire those players but to me it says a lot about our GM when most of his supporters don't trust him to even try this. (Sorry but it usually comes back to this, but the GM position is so crucial to running a team that eventually it comes down to this.)

 

[mriswith]

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.

I'm out of the loop, what was the story about the McCann/Gudbranson negotiation?

 

[StreetHawk]

The players in question are gone ½ the year anyways now that we've waited so long to move away from them. Tanev is amongst the league leaders taking hits for the past few years.

Talented players don't need to be sheltered. See Boeser & Pettersson for instance.

But lets say you are correct and all kids need to be sheltered at first, you can actually accomplish both.

Move away from aging assets, while retaining as much value as possible in your organisation.
Acquire players who are not in your long term plans. Play them in those roles. If they fail, its fine, it is a rebuilding year and you are not invested in their success long term. If they succeed, awesome you can move them for something when the prospects are ready to take their place.

And yes. It can be difficult to acquire those players but to me it says a lot about our GM when most of his supporters don't trust him to even try this. (Sorry but it usually comes back to this, but the GM position is so crucial to running a team that eventually it comes down to this.)

If an offensive player makes a mistake it’s not going to be harped on when they turn the puck over in the offensive zone.

Defensive mistakes are much more glaring.

 

[opendoor]

I'm out of the loop, what was the story about the McCann/Gudbranson negotiation?

 

[ChilliBilly]

I always assumed Tryamkin made decent money in the KHL, but I found a list of the top 30 KHL salaries (from a few years ago, but after Tryamkin went back) and he wasn't on it. The 30th highest salary was only the equivalent of like $1.2M USD.

I know in the KHL you have to buy yourself out at 2/3's of the cost. I think Tryamkin only has one year left, so his buyout would be maybe $800k? Give the guy a 2 year deal for $6M and a $3M signing bonus, $1.5M/yr salary. Tryamkin buys himself out and gets to be part of the solution.

I’m pretty sure the rules say he can’t pay out of money he receives, he has to do it on his own. Have no idea how they would monitor this.

Glad that they didn’t trade Edler for crap. Would like to see him retire a Nuck. NMC and sign cheap.

Juolevi Hughes Tanev Edler Hutton Stecher & Tryamkin with Woo in the wings. Looks pretty good to me.

 

[stampedingviking]

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.

No, of course not, but he's proved that he is NOT a #1 defenceman.

You keep getting rid of your best players, especially on d, and you got Edmonton Mk 2.

FFS, it's got nothing to do with Benning, it's common sense but, unfortunately, it doesn't appear too common among anti-Benning posters who just. like you, want to get rid of any decent player for picks. It's a stupid way to go about things.

 

[stampedingviking]

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.

But every anti-Benning poster is already frothing round the mouth because we're losing and you want to make that worse?

 

[TruGr1t]

You keep getting rid of your best players, especially on d, and you got Edmonton Mk 2.

If you hitch your wagon to Edler and Tanev you're destined to go down that road anyway. The guys are not going to get healthier as they get older. They'll only miss more and more time until you're effectively always playing without them anyways. Then you have a couple salary anchors screwing up your ability to actually get a top defensive pair and establish actual depth.

Better not to tie yourself down with a couple long-term contracts to injury prone defensemen.

 

[stampedingviking]

This team plays better without Edler and Tanev in the lineup.

 

[Phenomenon13]

No, of course not, but he's proved that he is NOT a #1 defenceman.

You keep getting rid of your best players, especially on d, and you got Edmonton Mk 2.

FFS, it's got nothing to do with Benning, it's common sense but, unfortunately, it doesn't appear too common among anti-Benning posters who just. like you, want to get rid of any decent player for picks. It's a stupid way to go about things.

they definitely should have moved Edler at the deadline but they didn't so that's that.
Edler moving at the deadline would've freed up room in the top four when we're healthy to go:
Hutton-Stecher
Hughes-Tanev

Let them play big minutes in those "meaningful games" down the stretch and see if they can handle the minutes. If not, you go to free agency and fill it in as needed. If you listened to Ferraro on tsn and how he talked about his callup in Hartford for those "meaningful games", he gained a lot of experience in the second half of the season even though the team was hot garbage. He said it was instrumental for his development. You have to prioritize the future and making sure the guys who gets the big minutes in the "meaningful games" down the stretch are the guys you're going to have when you contend.

Unfortunately, Edler didn't waive but he should get reduced minutes and Hutton should get top pairing minutes to see if he can adapt to the role with Hughes being evaluated as a top 4 guy. If Hutton is doing poorly, that's fine. Let him make mistakes and learn. There's no more reason that Edler should get top pairing minutes, we have to prioritize player development from here on out.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

But every anti-Benning poster is already frothing round the mouth because we're losing and you want to make that worse?

What is an "anti-Benning poster"?
Is it possible to come to the conclusion that he is shit at his job without becoming an "anti-Benning poster"?
If looking at the objective facts, is it possible not to come to that conclusion unless you hold the preconceived notion that it is not okay to be anti Benning?

I think there are a couple of people who are unreasonably anti-Benning, and then there are a ton of shades of gray that are different degrees of anti-Benning depending on how much of the blame for the shit show the Canucks are said posters place on Benning.



Also.. It would be okay if we were rebuilding during these down years.

Its not that complicated honey cakes.

 

[Blue and Green]

they definitely should have moved Edler at the deadline but they didn't so that's that.
Edler moving at the deadline would've freed up room in the top four when we're healthy to go:
Hutton-Stecher
Hughes-Tanev

Let them play big minutes in those "meaningful games" down the stretch and see if they can handle the minutes. If not, you go to free agency and fill it in as needed. If you listened to Ferraro on tsn and how he talked about his callup in Hartford for those "meaningful games", he gained a lot of experience in the second half of the season even though the team was hot garbage. He said it was instrumental for his development. You have to prioritize the future and making sure the guys who gets the big minutes in the "meaningful games" down the stretch are the guys you're going to have when you contend.

Unfortunately, Edler didn't waive but he should get reduced minutes and Hutton should get top pairing minutes to see if he can adapt to the role with Hughes being evaluated as a top 4 guy. If Hutton is doing poorly, that's fine. Let him make mistakes and learn. There's no more reason that Edler should get top pairing minutes, we have to prioritize player development from here on out.

Edler has missed a bunch of games this year. Hutton has had lots of minutes as a 1st-pairing guy and is clearly overmatched in that role. Stecher has been better and I don't consider Stecher to be a 1st-pair player. Edler is the only one on the team.

 

[Phenomenon13]

Edler has missed a bunch of games this year. Hutton has had lots of minutes as a 1st-pairing guy and is clearly overmatched in that role. Stecher has been better and I don't consider Stecher to be a 1st-pair player. Edler is the only one on the team.

Hutton struggling is fine. I think it's a good learning process for him to get the minutes and his development is almost done. Hutton's shown to be a slow learner in my opinion from being passed over in the draft to finally taking that big step forward this year. I think the benefits of him playing big minutes and potentially playing better at the top pairing role last stretch of the season are greater than giving Edler those minutes.

I believe what we see of him now is what we're going to get for the rest of his career. A top 4 second pairing guy.

 

[TruGr1t]

they definitely should have moved Edler at the deadline but they didn't so that's that.

The next step is pretty clear. They need to trade Tanev. You keep one or the other, not both. Now that they've locked themselves in on Edler you get him extended and move Tanev at the draft.

 

[Phenomenon13]

The next step is pretty clear. They need to trade Tanev. You keep one or the other, not both. Now that they've locked themselves in on Edler you get him extended and move Tanev at the draft.

I agree, Player development is the priority from here on out. Edler should have moved because Tanev is a RHD on the right side. Edler was taking away a spot from Hughes or Hutton on the left. Tanev was already signed too so it seemed like a perfect time to move Edler. Unfortunately, it didn't work out but if they don't move Tanev. Edler should walk.

 

[ErrantShepherd]

I agree, Player development is the priority from here on out. Edler should have moved because Tanev is a RHD on the right side. Edler was taking away a spot from Hughes or Hutton on the left. Tanev was already signed too so it seemed like a perfect time to move Edler. Unfortunately, it didn't work out but if they don't move Tanev. Edler should walk.

Edler still being in strengthens the left side of the defense. Its insurance.

Edler -
Hutton -
Hughes -

Is a hell of a lot better than...

Hutton -
Hughes -
??? Pouliot? -

The only spot he's taking is from the very bottom pairing D-men... do you not want potentially 6 competent D men? Cause I miss that.

 

[Phenomenon13]

Edler still being in strengthens the left side of the defense. Its insurance.

Edler -
Hutton -
Hughes -

Is a hell of a lot better than...

Hutton -
Hughes -
??? Pouliot? -

The only spot he's taking is from the very bottom pairing D-men... do you not want potentially 6 competent D men? Cause I miss that.

I want 6 competent dmen but the best way to get 6 competent dmen is to develop them. The best way to develop them is giving them ice time.

Insurance should not take precedent over the team's future and development of players. I hate to say it but Edler doesn't belong in the Canucks future.

 

[stampedingviking]

I want 6 competent dmen but the best way to get 6 competent dmen is to develop them. The best way to develop them is giving them ice time.

Insurance should not take precedent over the team's future and development of players. I hate to say it but Edler doesn't belong in the Canucks future.

Hutton has had loads of ice time and has proven to definately not be a #1. Who do you want to try next? Pouliot?

 

[Phenomenon13]

Hutton has had loads of ice time and has proven to definately not be a #1. Who do you want to try next? Pouliot?

Dont be stupid.

Hutton is a stop gap for the top pairing. Obviously you try Hughes next. Give him the minutes and try him on the top pairing at a decent sample size. Pouliot has no future on this team either.

 

[strattonius]

Dont be stupid.

Hutton is a stop gap for the top pairing. Obviously you try Hughes next. Give him the minutes and try him on the top pairing at a decent sample size. Pouliot has no future on this team either.

Completely disagree. Hutton will be a cheap top 4 d-man for us moving forward. Hes at a decent age and has shown to be capable with a heavy workload. What else are you looking for? This would be a decent team with a couple more Huttons.