Who'll be the first D-Man to go?

[Bleach Clean]

A better question would be: Why do so many people want him gone?

He has quickly become our most underrated/under appreciated player by far.

Management claims the goal is to "re-tool" and get younger. Trading Edler is totally contradictory that idea. People say, "Well we have to trade Edler because he has more trade value than our other defenseman." Do we even realize how stupid that statement is?

Can you explain to me how this statement is "stupid"? Is it that he has the highest value so he must be the best, so why deal him? If not, please explain what else it could be. Further, can you apply the logic behind this belief to the Schneider trade, where many advocated dealing him because he "carried more value"? Thanks in advance.

He's a 27 year old top 2 D-Man who can play 23 mins a night. He hits, he's good on the PP, he can skate, he's big, and he's better defensively than he's given credit for.

I would hate to see Edler go, especially now that everyone thinks he's worthless. If you're going to trade a player, trade him when his value is higher than it should be not lower than it should be.

I think you have to parse what you are reading. The people that want him moved based on his value, are not the ones that think he's worthless. Or, should not be.

"Value" is also not completely reliant on a player's latest season. Though many would like to think it is. I'm pretty sure GMs around the league know what Edler can provide, both good and bad.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Can you explain to me how this statement is "stupid"? Is it that he has the highest value so he must be the best, so why deal him? If not, please explain what else it could be. Further, can you apply the logic behind this belief to the Schneider trade, where many advocated dealing him because he "carried more value"? Thanks in advance.

Those who advocated trading Schneider(well, at least me) did so because the team was in win-now mode and if we could move Schneider for a top-6 forward then that added scoring boost would be much more useful than the difference between Luongo and Schneider in the short term.

If we were rebuilding then in hindsight I would have rather traded Luongo for whatever we could get.

Also, with Edler, he is exactly the right age that makes him a bad choice to be moved whatever the direction the team moves in. If we're rebuilding, he's young enough to still be in his.prime when we come out of it. If we're looking to compete now, then there are younger players/prospects who are less developed who would make more sense to deal from a contender's POV over our top offensive defenseman.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Those who advocated trading Schneider(well, at least me) did so because the team was in win-now mode and if we could move Schneider for a top-6 forward then that added scoring boost would be much more useful than the difference between Luongo and Schneider in the short term.

That again comes down to Schneider being able to potentially pull that top6 forward, and Luongo not being able to do the same. Hence, his value was higher, but he was still moved.

If we were rebuilding then in hindsight I would have rather traded Luongo for whatever we could get.

Also, with Edler, he is exactly the right age that makes him a bad choice to be moved whatever the direction the team moves in. If we're rebuilding, he's young enough to still be in his.prime when we come out of it. If we're looking to compete now, then there are younger players/prospects who are less developed who would make more sense to deal from a contender's POV over our top offensive defenseman.

If Edler is "exactly the right age" regardless of direction, then so was/is Schneider.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

That again comes down to Schneider being able to potentially pull that top6 forward, and Luongo not being able to do the same. Hence, his value was higher, but he was still moved.

If Edler is "exactly the right age" regardless of direction, then so was/is Schneider.

Apples and oranges. If we could only play one defenseman in a game then I could see moving Edler to fill a gaping hole with say Bieksa as a replacement if we were in "win now" mode, if Bieksa were signed to a contract that neutered his value.

But we need 6 defensemen, and the difference between Edler and our #7 callup is much, much greater than that between Luongo and Schneider.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Apples and oranges. If we could only play one defenseman in a game then I could see moving Edler to fill a gaping hole with say Bieksa as a replacement if we were in "win now" mode, if Bieksa were signed to a contract that neutered his value.

But we need 6 defensemen, and the difference between Edler and our #7 callup is much, much greater than that between Luongo and Schneider.

Except the choice isn't between Edler vs the #7 guy. It's Edler vs. the next best top4 Dman. And Edler vs. the group of top4 Dmen. The people that want to deal Edler for value are taking into account that the team still has 4 top4 Dmen regardless. They also have 2 high paid LHDs. That's why Edler is deemed expendable. The same reasoning applies to dealing Schneider because Luongo was/is in house. It came down to the team having a fallback option. Just like it does now with Hamhuis/Garrison on the left side.

Younger asset, better regardless of rebuild/retool (your words), more value in trade, and was dealt... That's text book right there. If the logic applies to one, it should apply to both IMO. Beyond that, nothing further to say on this issue unless Love responds.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Except the choice isn't between Edler vs the #7 guy. It's Edler vs. the next best top4 Dman. And Edler vs. the group of top4 Dmen. The people that want to deal Edler for value are taking into account that the team still has 4 top4 Dmen regardless. They also have 2 high paid LHDs. That's why Edler is deemed expendable. The same reasoning applies to dealing Schneider because Luongo was/is in house. It came down to the team having a fallback option. Just like it does now with Hamhuis/Garrison on the left side.

Younger asset, better regardless of rebuild/retool (your words), more value in trade, and was dealt... That's text book right there. If the logic applies to one, it should apply to both IMO. Beyond that, nothing further to say on this issue unless Love responds.

If we were contending I wouldn't want to move any top-4 defensemen, period, so your first point is moot.

Anyways, I was just explaining that just because someone wanted to trade Schneider(as a contending team) does not imply wanting to trade Edler(as a rebuilding or contending team)

While obviously I don't speak for everyone, though.

 

[arttk]

Those who advocated trading Schneider(well, at least me) did so because the team was in win-now mode and if we could move Schneider for a top-6 forward then that added scoring boost would be much more useful than the difference between Luongo and Schneider in the short term.

If we were rebuilding then in hindsight I would have rather traded Luongo for whatever we could get.

Also, with Edler, he is exactly the right age that makes him a bad choice to be moved whatever the direction the team moves in. If we're rebuilding, he's young enough to still be in his.prime when we come out of it. If we're looking to compete now, then there are younger players/prospects who are less developed who would make more sense to deal from a contender's POV over our top offensive defenseman.

I think the problem was that whatever we could get was like nothing.
Do you want to trade away Luongo for nothing or keep Luongo and get BoHo.

To you point about Edler, I think you would look at the comparative return. If what you get from trading Edler is only marginally better than what you get from Bieksa, then you trade Bieksa. If you can get a really really good piece, (say B.Schenn, Strome, Couts ++ etc ...) for Edler and you can't get that with Bieksa, then hell yeah you make that trade.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

I think the problem was that whatever we could get was like nothing.
Do you want to trade away Luongo for nothing or keep Luongo and get BoHo.

To you point about Edler, I think you would look at the comparative return. If what you get from trading Edler is only marginally better than what you get from Bieksa, then you trade Bieksa. If you can get a really really good piece, (say B.Schenn, Strome, Couts ++ etc ...) for Edler and you can't get that with Bieksa, then hell yeah you make that trade.

I'd have bought out Luongo if we were rebuilding over trading Schneider. Luongo's value to a rebuilding team is literally nil, possibly negative.

If someone offers gross overpayment for Edler(that being subjective) then sure I'd look at moving him. But the same could be said for almost any player.

 

[arttk]

I'd have bought out Luongo if we were rebuilding over trading Schneider. Luongo's value to a rebuilding team is literally nil, possibly negative.

If someone offers gross overpayment for Edler(that being subjective) then sure I'd look at moving him. But the same could be said for almost any player.

Easy to say when you are not the one footing the bill. 40M is basically 1/4 or maybe 1/5 of what he paid for the Canucks. Plus you have to think about it from the perspective of a businessman. Option a) pay a ******** of money and nothing tangible back. b) don't pay a ******** of money and get something tangible back. For both option, you will still end up with a goalie that is good. Oh and at the end of the day, the franchise is still going to make bank. Any sane businessman will take option b.

Well I think the only players (aside from the kids) that could potentially get an overpayment would be Kesler and Edler. GMs love players like that regardless of what we fans think.

 

[Bleach Clean]

If we were contending I wouldn't want to move any top-4 defensemen, period, so your first point is moot.

Doesn't work like that. If you don't have any holes elsewhere, then you can keep your surplus. Point stands as far as I'm concerned.

Anyways, I was just explaining that just because someone wanted to trade Schneider(as a contending team) does not imply wanting to trade Edler(as a rebuilding or contending team)

While obviously I don't speak for everyone, though.

I understand your point, I just disagree with the logic and have pointed out why. To me, it's not logical to say that player X should be traded for his higher value due to positional surplus, and not player Y for almost exactly the same reason. The point about rebuilding/retooling/contending has been rendered meaningless as both Edler and Schneider meet the age requirement to be viable across all situations (per your own argument). Now I look to hear from Love on the matter.

 

[arsmaster*]

If yore rebuilding why even have a goalie? Much higher likelihood of getting the golden chalice of 1st overall.

Why would anyone pay a goalie $40m to play somewhere else?

Why would keeping an elite goalie be conducive to getting high picks during a rebuild?

 

[Bleach Clean]

If yore rebuilding why even have a goalie? Much higher likelihood of getting the golden chalice of 1st overall.

Why would anyone pay a goalie $40m to play somewhere else?

Why would keeping an elite goalie be conducive to getting high picks during a rebuild?

It wouldn't be, which is why I don't buy the theory of situational importance. As was said earlier, if Edler/Schneider are of the age to be the elders of a rebuild, key parts of a contending team, or good supplements in a retool, situational environments are meaningless. Same with positional importance, as each position offers redundancy.

Simply put, if you are looking to win at all and you have a surplus in an area, you deal value or you deal at the low end. With Schneider, they chose to deal value. But now the argument is the opposite when it comes to Edler. Hence, the difference of opinion.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Doesn't work like that. If you don't have any holes elsewhere, then you can keep your surplus. Point stands as far as I'm concerned.

We don't have to trade a top-4 defenseman. If it were up to me, I'd have moved futures to fill our holes well before moving Edler. You can disagree with the idea of moving futures instead of defensemen, but that doesn't make it a logical fallacy.

I understand your point, I just disagree with the logic and have pointed out why. To me, it's not logical to say that player X should be traded for his higher value due to positional surplus, and not player Y for almost exactly the same reason. The point about rebuilding/retooling/contending has been rendered meaningless as both Edler and Schneider meet the age requirement to be viable across all situations (per your own argument). Now I look to hear from Love on the matter.

Both Edler and Schneider meet the age requirement for a rebuilding team, but when we were talking about trading Schneider we had one back-to-back President's trophies. Our situation since then has obviously changed.

I agree though that it makes no sense to trade a player simply because he has more value. That doesn't mean you should never trade the more valuable player in any situation.

 

[Bleach Clean]

We don't have to trade a top-4 defenseman. If it were up to me, I'd have moved futures to fill our holes well before moving Edler. You can disagree with the idea of moving futures instead of defensemen, but that doesn't make it a logical fallacy.

The team didn't have to trade a goalie either. Not by strict definitions. They traded Schneider due to the opportunity cost he represented. The loss of potential gain by keeping Edler would be near the same. Given limited resources, the best forgone alternative (help up front/help for the pipeline) represented a higher value to the Canucks. Hence, a goalie was dealt for that alternative.

The same rule applies to Edler. At a certain point, the Canucks will be allocating top4 money to 4 dmen _aside_ from Edler. Meaning, five top4 Dmen. Therefore, he, or the lowest valued top4, represents a surplus. Keeping that surplus constitutes an opportunity cost incurred by not dealing him for something this team needs more: A young high end forward. Even if they dealt picks instead, Edler would continue to represent a surplus.

Draft picks, given this team's weak pipeline and subsequent deal for Horvat, actually represents the value portion of opportunity cost, not the surplus.

Both Edler and Schneider meet the age requirement for a rebuilding team, but when we were talking about trading Schneider we had one back-to-back President's trophies. Our situation since then has obviously changed.

I agree though that it makes no sense to trade a player simply because he has more value. That doesn't mean you should never trade the more valuable player in any situation.

The situation makes no difference per your own argument. All that matters is their age.

Edit: That will be my last response on the matter lest Love respond with his own take.

 

[dwarf]

Some people are actually surprised by this poll?

Edler has shown zero interest in so many games the last two years, since he signed his big deal, its painful to watch.

Maybe it is a coaching issue, but I think its a big bucks issue. Some people earn and then play at the level of their contracts. They take pride in being an elite player and have drive, night in, night out.

Then there are others who are just thieves. They work hard for a big deal contract, and then float like little girls at a figure skating match.

Every game Edler is stealing from Canuck fans. He has to go.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Some people are actually surprised by this poll?

Edler has shown zero interest in so many games the last two years, since he signed his big deal, its painful to watch.

Maybe it is a coaching issue, but I think its a big bucks issue. Some people earn and then play at the level of their contracts. They take pride in being an elite player and have drive, night in, night out.

Then there are others who are just thieves. They work hard for a big deal contract, and then float like little girls at a figure skating match.

Every game Edler is stealing from Canuck fans. He has to go.

That's harsh. I'm not surprised this poll is a landslide in dealing Edler. It's the right call IMO. I agree with the logic behind it. That said, I've never viewed Edler as a contract year player. To me, that's totally off.

 

[Rick Rocket]

With the year Edler is having it would be foolish to trade him over someone else like Bieksa who's having a typical season for production. I could see a team that is loaded adding Bieksa for some extra depth. It always tempting to move players when they are struggling but if you want to retool you have to let players go that still have some value. Edler should get moved when he gets back on pace for 40 pts.

i agree!

 

[Vankiller Whale]

The team didn't have to trade a goalie either. Not by strict definitions. They traded Schneider due to the opportunity cost he represented. The loss of potential gain by keeping Edler would be near the same. Given limited resources, the best forgone alternative (help up front/help for the pipeline) represented a higher value to the Canucks. Hence, a goalie was dealt for that alternative.

The same rule applies to Edler. At a certain point, the Canucks will be allocating top4 money to 4 dmen _aside_ from Edler. Meaning, five top4 Dmen. Therefore, he, or the lowest valued top4, represents a surplus. Keeping that surplus constitutes an opportunity cost incurred by not dealing him for something this team needs more: A young high end forward. Even if they dealt picks instead, Edler would continue to represent a surplus.

Draft picks, given this team's weak pipeline and subsequent deal for Horvat, actually represents the value portion of opportunity cost, not the surplus.

When we reach a surplus, then we should either move the worst top-4 Dman(if we're contending) or the oldest(if we're rebuilding) Edler fits neither of these categories. The exception being if Edler's return could hypothetically vastly accelerate this team in whatever direction they want to go compared to anyone else.

The situation makes no difference per your own argument. All that matters is their age.

What? I've been arguing the exact opposite, that the situation does matter.

 

[Havre]

Some people are actually surprised by this poll?

It might be influenced by how you interpret the results as well.

I think Edler will be the one to go because Garrison would probably be more reluctant to do so. If another team gave me the same return for Garrison and Edler - and both players would be willing to leave - I would have made the trade with Garrison.

Edler is frustrating, but to win a Stanley Cup you got to be a bit lucky with players stepping up. Edler making that next step would make him a much better player than Garrison could ever be - even if I don't think it is likely it is still a "value bet" in that hypothetical situation.