HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Proposal: Canucks - Flyers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1240001)

MISC* 08-01-2012 01:25 AM

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.

Scottrockztheworld* 08-01-2012 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISC (Post 53173731)
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.

DropIt 08-01-2012 01:27 AM

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

JS19 08-01-2012 01:29 AM

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).

CommonMeans* 08-01-2012 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JS19 (Post 53173771)
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.

BlackRedYellow 08-01-2012 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JS19 (Post 53173771)
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).

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

JS19 08-01-2012 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CommonMeans (Post 53173787)
The Canucks have sub-par D? Haha ok there buddy.

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)

DropIt 08-01-2012 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackRedYellow (Post 53173801)
Without Edler the Canucks have Garrison, Hamhuis, Bieksa, Ballard, Tanev, Connauton, Alberts, and a few others. How is that subpar?

Its not great, average at best

KISSland 08-01-2012 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JS19 (Post 53173829)
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)

Yeah, cause that was the problem...

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

phlla12 08-01-2012 01:42 AM

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)

GTopCheese 08-01-2012 01:44 AM

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

YouCantYandleThis* 08-01-2012 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DropIt (Post 53173837)
Its not great, average at best

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.

CommonMeans* 08-01-2012 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JS19 (Post 53173829)
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)

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.

JS19 08-01-2012 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CommonMeans (Post 53173949)
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?

CommonMeans* 08-01-2012 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JS19 (Post 53173981)
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.

aandbreatheme 08-01-2012 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JS19 (Post 53173981)
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?

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

JS19 08-01-2012 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CommonMeans (Post 53173999)
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.

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.

gsharpe 08-01-2012 02:19 AM

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

Cogburn 08-01-2012 02:19 AM

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.

Cogburn 08-01-2012 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JS19 (Post 53174097)
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.

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.

Derp Kassian 08-01-2012 02:30 AM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JS19 (Post 53174097)
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.

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.

VanFan101 08-01-2012 02:36 AM

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.

LeX4cavalier 08-01-2012 02:47 AM

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.

Reverend Mayhem 08-01-2012 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DropIt (Post 53173747)
I feel the hole Edler leaves isn't worth the one Hartnell fills for Vancouver

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

professorchaos 08-01-2012 03:03 AM

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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:03 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.