Thread: Value of: Edler + Schneider
View Single Post
12-14-2012, 11:28 AM
Registered User
Cogburn's Avatar
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,176
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by sully1410 View Post
I highly doubt Vancouver would move him at the deadline regardless...they are a lock to at least make the playoffs and will need him once there. They'll roll the dice and try to resign him for sure. If not, his rights become worth a 4th rd pick probably?


If he was signed, we're looking at the Brent Burns Trade at a bare minimum. As an impending UFA, he returned a top six fwd, albeit a low ranking one by all counts, a B prospect and a late first.

Your probably looking at the frame work of that trade...except better. A forward that is a solid second liner, not one that struggles there, an A prospect, not blue chip by any means, but a really good one and a 1st rd...and depending on where that is probably a 2nd as well. You could do a top four defensemen as well.

Thats just for Edler.

As for Schneider...probably a top line fwd, or something similar to the edler package.

From the jets, fair value(not saying i would do it...but for the sake of value and because it is the team i am the most familiar with)

E.Kane, Burmistrov, Klingberg/Kosmachuk, 1st, 2nd.

Once again...not saying id do it...but i think thats pretty fair value.
Sully, my friend, are you sure you're not a closet Canucks fan? I mean I'm not sure I'd do it, but that is a nice return for our boys. I can't say I know too too much about Klingberg or Kosmachuk, but for two pieces the Jets...well hopefully don't need...I'd like to tweak it a little bit (additional prospects seem redundant with Kane and Burmistrov's respective ages), but I could get behind this.

Originally Posted by ATdaisuki View Post
a deal around zibanejad (c/w?) or mark stone (rw), wiercioch (d), 1st, and possibly another piece for edler? the deal would have to be for a signed edler, so we'd have to negotiate with him before-hand.

zibby has the physical tools but hasn't put it together yet. he plays center, but we were trying to get him to adjust to the wing. to be honest, playing him on the wing wasn't working well, but he's still young. if you can get him to put everything together on the wing, he could play with the sedins. stone has (very) high end hockey sense and is a good passer and shooter. he isn't a great skater though. i think playing with other players with high hockey sense like the sedins would be good for him.

sens fans had high expectations for wier. after disappointing last season in the ahl, and a serious injury where he got a puck to the throat, it wasn't looking good for him. he hit the gym last summer like most people were saying he needed to do and is no longer a beanpole that gets pushed around in his own end. he's shooting more and showing off the offensive skills he was drafted for. wiercioch has been the best defense man on a great defensive team in binghamton. lots of sens fans saying he could step up and play in the big league after the lockout (even if cowen wasn't out for the season). hockey db has him up at 6'5, 210 (i think that's off a bit. he was 185 last year, hard to believe he put on that much muscle).

if we needed the + what would it be? hope it's not too much.

Zibanejad, Wiercoch and a 1st? Tempting, but we'd need something to impact our roster now if we're losing Edler. And yes, negotiating rights would be given before hand in the event of a trade like this, naturally. I think Sully's offer is ahead of yours Not by a ton mind you, but Kane is a home town boy, we know what we have in him too.

Originally Posted by GoTeamDom View Post
Done. Love Wiercioch, Z extends our window, mid-to-late first will help.

There is still the matter of Lu wanting to leave, but assuming he has a change of heart, done.
I think it's more Lu doesn't want to be viewed as a back up, and have his ice time reduced further (from 70 something games to 40 or 50 something last season). I'd love to keep both, but I'm happy with either.

Cogburn is offline   Reply With Quote