View Single Post
01-10-2013, 09:12 AM
dave babych returns
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,310
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by GoTeamDom View Post
This, and basically only this, is why I'd be in favour of trading Edler, much to the chagrin of other posters on this site. I would hate to lose a top defenseman to free agency for nothing 6 times out of 6 (Jovo, Ohlund, Mitchell, Ehrhoff, Salo, Edler) instead of cashing in for premium assets.
Premium assets, right. The Canucks are going to trade an All Star who they have better than even chances of re-signing who has a unique skill set on the team for "premium" assets.

For me it would have to be at the very least a player capable of having the same impact Edler does within a few years (John Carlson, Travis Hamonic) and those guys are not moving.

An Alex Edler trade will be a case of moving a $50 for two $20s and a $10 all for the sake of hanging on to a ratty $20 that nobody else wants all that much.

It's nice to say you'll just buy out Ballard to pay for Edler, but the team actually gets worse by doing this since you'll have to replace Ballard with something. And that's assuming Edler returns to form following his back surgeries.
You won't have to replace Edler? I guess you think Keith Ballard is going to transform from a player who is successful when he is a middle of the pack guy on his own team to a player who is capable of being one of the best in the league..

And yeah Keith Ballard would have to be replaced. Which could probably be done for about half the cap space.

Also, the Canucks is still a business. Buying out Ballard would cost $2.8m, and after losing half a season of revenue, this is the kind of unnecessary expenditure that sinks successful businesses.

$2.8m is going to "sink" the Canucks? With a falling salary cap and fewer loopholes they could probably buy Ballard out and still pay out less salary than they did last year (especially if Luongo is dealt).

The owners may not be psyched about buying players out per se but we know they are psyched about spending whatever it takes to put the best product on the ice.

Of course if Keith Ballard is as good as you say then the team should be able to trade him making this laughable argument moot.

Trading Edler for high calibre players on entry level contracts which will extend the Canucks window to complete. It frees up cap space for a true 3rd line centre to build a secondary scoring line around, or pays for a true 1st line scorer to pair with Kesler. Either of these players would probably need to be brought in by trade as well, and an Edler trade could bring in necessary assets to make this deal get done.
No way does Edler bring in multiple high calibre NHL players, on their ELCs to boot. Are we supposed to get Couture and Brayden Schenn back together or something?

Frankly I would bet that Edler with his current contract status would bring back a 1st round pick and a pretty good young NHLer - nice things to have but hardly franchise altering.. Basically we'd be moving Edler for a draft pick and a massive downgrade (who would hopefully one day be just a moderate downgrade).

All because we might not be able to re-sign this player, well I am pretty confident the Canucks can get a deal done.

We are overloaded on LHD, and even though he's the current whipping boy, Ballard is a quality defenseman who is slightly overpaid. A Ballard-Garrison 2nd pairing is a slight downgrade over an Edler-Salo 2nd pairing; that being said, an Edler-Garrison pairing is a slight downgrade over an Edler-Salo pairing.
Jason Garrison is a considerable upgrade over Sami Salo (did you watch the last half of last year? I love Sami but he is done). Keith Ballard is a colossal downgrade from Edler and can't anchor his own pairing in this system if you wanted to split the second pairing up.

The Canucks would be lucky to break even going from Edler/Salo to Ballard/Garrison, except Garrison has said he's not comfortable on the right side and Keith Ballard is an unmitigated disaster there so it would probably not work out.

You'd have Garrison/Tanev and you'd have Keith Ballard making $4.2m while the team has to find a stabilizing influence who can play the right side and who makes third pairing money.. Not an easy task.

It is nice to keep around a player we have watched rocket his way up the system (via the Rockets, no less), and just throw around money to make people go away, but I doubt this is how the Canucks run a business.
No what is "nice" is putting the best hockey team on the ice so you have the best chance at more wins, more playoff home dates and more revenue. Because the Canucks are a business.

But anyway "Ballard is a quality defenseman who is slightly overpaid" so the Canucks should have no trouble moving him rather than buying him out. Business!

Gillis has had to part ways with his own clients (Naslund, Demitra, Schneider) when they no longer fit the puzzle. He has quickly changed gears (Sturm) when the pieces did not fit. He kept Ehrhoff when it was clear that the team had a shot to win it all, and let him walk when it didn't make financial sense to keep him. I hardly think he is as an emotional manager as a vocal minority of this board.
This is all neither here nor there. I agree he does not seem to be an emotional manager so I am guessing he is not going to panic and make a terrible decision just because a good player on the team is eligible for free agency.

That being said, I'd be in favour of keeping Edler under the following circumstances:
- signs a long term contract AAV $4.6m or less
- no NTC

I don't see either of these things happening.
Me neither but the team can fit him in at anything under six (I think it would be best to keep him under $5.5m but I would overpay to get a deal with no NTC) with little trouble.

I said in another thread that Edler isn't the missing piece between this team being a Stanley Cup contender and not a Stanley Cup contender. Likewise, Edler isn't the missing piece between a playoff team and not a playoff team.
So what you're saying is that Alex Edler doesn't improve teams.. but earlier you said he's going to return a king's ransom despite having no contract beyond this year.

Makes sense to explore your options entirely before hitching your wagon to him longterm.
Sure, explore all you like.

dave babych returns is offline