Canucks - Flyers
 

To Philly:

Edler, Alexander

To Canucks:

Hartnell, Scott


Why?

Philly desperately needs to address the defensive core of this team. Edler will replace a much needed high end d-man who can QB a PP and log 22-24min.

Vancouver needs toughness and grit up front. Hartnell can play in front of the goalie on the PP and on the 2nd line with Kesler. Can keep defenders busy while the skill guys do there thing.

Both players have 1 year left and both cap hit's are pretty close.

No thanks!

Vancouver needs Edler more then they need Hartnell.

I feel the hole Edler leaves isn't worth the one Hartnell fills for Vancouver

Better get the flame shields ready...

Just because Weber didn't sign the offer sheet, it doesn't mean that Philly is in deep trouble with their defensive core. They have a steady core, adding Edler at the expense of Hartnell will hurt their offense.

Same with Vancouver, Edler is practically their #1 offensive D and losing him for Hartnell isn't going to improve their subpar D (one of the reasons why they lost in the playoffs).

The Canucks have sub-par D? Haha ok there buddy.

Without Edler the Canucks have Garrison, Hamhuis, Bieksa, Ballard, Tanev, Connauton, Alberts, and a few others. How is that subpar?

Well they got so far in the playoffs with that D now didn't they? (Note I'm talking before Garrison/whatever changes they made happened)

Its not great, average at best

Yeah, cause that was the problem...

Anyways, no thanks from Canucks. Edler holds too much value to this team.

It's not the worst trade ever proposed, but the timing is bad.

1) Hartnell is loved; which equals $$$ for franchise
2) We can't lose Hartnell + JVR + Jarg upfront in one offseason
3) Our D is not that bad... (some of us, not me) think we're better now that we lost Carl (/laugh)

^ We are better without Carle. So sick of him.

It's certainly not great, but it's absolutely above average. Edler, Hamhuis, Bieksa, and Garrison are all legitimate top 2/3/4 Defensemen, and Ballard and Tanev are both nipping on their heels as well. It's a well-rounded D-core that provides ample offense as well as some occasionally inconsistent defense. Thankfully we have good goaltenders.

I'd say it's a good defence. Not top 5 in the league or anything, but top 10-15? absolutely.

Nonsensical argument. That is, it does not follow. Nice try though. Maybe if you actually watched the Canucks you'd understand that the Canucks didn't lose in the playoffs 'cause of their D. If you do watch the Canucks then maybe you should pick up a new sport to engage in; obviously hockey isn't "sinking" in.

Maybe your reading comprehension needs some help, I said ONE of the reasons. I know scoring was also a problem, but you're in denial if you think your D core was set to take on the West in the playoffs (Edler had a bad playoff series, Bieksa was very average to poor, Hamhuis was a non-factor). Why else were people so open to the idea of getting Garrison in the first place?

So basically the Canucks won the West the year before 'cause of Erhoff? Or is it possible the team as a whole just sucked. What you state DOES NOT FOLLOW. Goodnight.

There was no way Salo was going to play 2nd pairing minutes next season.

Way to conveniently gloss over that I said there are other problems on top of crappy defensive play. But sure, live in your own denial then...because that defense is totally Stanley Cup/Norris worthy.

Go ahead and name 4 better defensive groups. Im curious.

I feel partly responsible for this, bringing back the Edler thread. We aren't actively looking to move him.

I like Hartnell, but he isn't as valuable as us as Edler, and he's definitely not as valuable to us as he is to the Flyers. We'd need more back, a lesser top 4 dman from somewhere on the roster, would be a minimum addition, and I know Flyers fans won't start down that path.

I don't think their D is that bad either...Prongers out, but that's still Timonen, Schenn, Mezaros, Coburn and even Grossman, Lilja and Gervais to lesser or larger extents make a decent core. Edler, or Weber, or any other top 20 Dman would take it from above average on paper to phenomenal. The first 5 guys I listed are all solid top 4 defenders...if the defence isn't working, it might be the strategy more then the pieces...like ours.

Norris is individual, but nice.

Our defenders themselves aren't bad at all, Edler or no. I think our system is flawed defensively, asking far too much individual effort, and results in injuries (see Hamhuis and Ballard having ironman streaks ruined on our team, Bieksa's freak injuries, etc), a lack of support if we're heavily pressured (see L.A., Boston, Chicago) and other areas that need support/changes. Playing Rome like a top four and leaving Ballard to languish on the bench also messes things up, and that's not the players, thats coaching.

Imo Canucks would rather add Doan or give a shot to Kassian/Jensen then trade a potential Norris candidate for Scott Hartnell. Hartnell would fit well with the Sedins but I'm not sure if he'd do well with Kesler since Kes likes to be more of a puck carrier.

It is cup worthy, severely decimated the same 4/6(hamhuis got injured) defenseman got to within 1 game of the cup. Top 4 is easily in the middle of the top10.

Ah HF, one poster makes an uneducated statement, and then instead of correcting themselves, they defend it over and over and successfully derail an entire thread.

Lol at the guy who thinks the Canucks have a subpar d, it's easily better than the Flyers, and it's probably top 5 in the NHL. To the trade, no thank you from the Canucks. Edler's a ufa in 1 year, but so is Hartnell. Edler is much younger, and a better player.

That's really all there is to this thread, as much as I like Hartsy.

Hartnell is one of my fave players in the NHL. I would gladly give up Edler for him if we had the defensive depth and Philly had the offensive depth for this move to work.