HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Canucks - Flyers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-01-2012, 03:21 AM
  #26
AlvintheChoster
Registered User
 
AlvintheChoster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: VanCity
Country: Canada
Posts: 708
vCash: 500
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Edler - Garrison
Ballard - Tanev

Not an amazing D corps, but certainly better than 'sub-par'.

AlvintheChoster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 03:25 AM
  #27
RespectYourEdlers
Registered User
 
RespectYourEdlers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Surrey
Country: Canada
Posts: 612
vCash: 500
We will NOT trade Edler unless it's for an upgrade on defense.
All he needs to do is learn to be more consistent on D, and once he does that it's only a matter of time he becomes a true #1 dman

RespectYourEdlers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 03:34 AM
  #28
Ched Brosky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,869
vCash: 500
To the Canucks fans trying to trade Edler f-off!!! He did all our scoring from the back end. U guys complain we let Ehrhoff go and now we have no offence from the back end, how is getting rid of Edler going to help that exactly? Canucks fans are soo fickle. He had one bad series. Are we going to get rid of Hamhuis next because of his turnover that caused the eliminating goal? Oh wait no because Edler is Swedish and 50 point d-men grow on trees and Hamhuis is Canadian and Canadian players are the best. This is getting soo tiresome, did we all forget how he was elite-esque against the Kings last time around in the playoffs? U guys seriously think this team would be better with a top 6 foward and an Alberts Tanev bottom pairing or a rookie bottom pairing of Suave/Connauton Tanev?

Ched Brosky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 03:58 AM
  #29
hockeyguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 319
vCash: 500
as a flyers fan this is tough since hartnell had a break out year but how much of that was G's doing. He's loved in philly and he loves philly back but his contract is up next year and is due for a raise. We would adress a need but also lose a top line lw which may put schenn on the first line. I'd have to pass on this deal just due to the amount of love hartsy has, i'd do a package of like jake since he's locked up for years and that speed of that line with the sedins and him would be crazy, a young defenseman like MA bergeron and picks. If you really are set on a gritty wing with upside i'd substitute jake with simmonds


Last edited by hockeyguy: 08-01-2012 at 04:04 AM.
hockeyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 04:05 AM
  #30
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
M.A. Bourdon*

We don't have Bergeron. Also, if Hartnell is a no (which he should be), then Jake/Simmonds plus picks and MAB is almost certainly a no go too.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 04:07 AM
  #31
pahlsson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,342
vCash: 50
aw ****, awesome username

pahlsson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 05:17 AM
  #32
hockeyguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja View Post
M.A. Bourdon*

We don't have Bergeron. Also, if Hartnell is a no (which he should be), then Jake/Simmonds plus picks and MAB is almost certainly a no go too.
my b haha yea i switched up bourdon and the lightning's d man but if defense is the weakspot and a number 1 dman is a need i'd pull the trigger on a deal involving jake or wayne if it meant bringing back a player of edler's caliber

hockeyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:28 AM
  #33
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,337
vCash: 500
Hmm, I think this deal is about as even a proposal as I have seen here. I would seriously consider from a Flyers perspective for a few reasons:

1. Edler aligns better age wise with our young core
2. There are very few options for the Flyers to improve their defense over the next year and a half.
3. Wayne Simmonds could develop into a similar player to Hartnell
4. I trust the ability of the Flyers to find, draft, develop, and/or sign forwards a whole lot more than I trust their ability to do the same for defensemen.

That said, Hartnell is a heart and soul guy. Hits, fights, scores, pretty good defensively. If he skated better, he'd be a super star.

Tough trade... which makes it pretty close to fair value. I'm sure the teams and their fans would have their respective reasons for not doing the deal, but yeah, value isn't far off in a bubble.

Broad Street Elite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:34 AM
  #34
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ ( ͡ ᴥ͡)
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Potato
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,989
vCash: 50
#1 d-man >>> top 6 forward


Absolutely horrible value for the Canucks.
If we move Edler we need another top 4 d-man in return, otherwise we'd only have three top 4 d-men.

__________________

Richer's Ghost made my avatar
Nuckles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:11 AM
  #35
Sasso09
Registered User
 
Sasso09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 5,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuckles37 View Post
#1 d-man >>> top 6 forward


Absolutely horrible value for the Canucks.
If we move Edler we need another top 4 d-man in return, otherwise we'd only have three top 4 d-men.
I agree, #1 D is more important than a top 6 forward... But if you're calling Edler a #1 D you have to call Hartnell a #1 Winger. I think he value is even, now weather it works for either team, that's a different story.

Sasso09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:18 AM
  #36
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ ( ͡ ᴥ͡)
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Potato
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,989
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasso09 View Post
I agree, #1 D is more important than a top 6 forward... But if you're calling Edler a #1 D you have to call Hartnell a #1 Winger. I think he value is even, now weather it works for either team, that's a different story.
I don't know about calling Hartnell a 1st liner. He has only had 50+ points twice in his career, and he's 30 years old.
Flyers fans wanted Hartnell as far away from the team as possible last season before he started playing with Giroux.

I've seen the Flyers play quite a bit, and in my opinion Edler holds much more value. Philly would have to add B. Schenn or Couturier. Yep, dead serious.
But even then, that trade makes no sense for the Canucks, since it leaves us with a pretty big gap on defense.

Nuckles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:22 AM
  #37
The Hendog
Registered User
 
The Hendog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by icebank_miceelf View Post
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.
Agreed and I think most people would agree they are top 10
And I think Edler is the best in that group so taking him out would be the worst idea for the Canucks and the top 10 D core would drop quickly

So as a Flames fan... The Canucks should probably trade Edler!

The Hendog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:28 AM
  #38
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ ( ͡ ᴥ͡)
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Potato
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,989
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by icebank_miceelf View Post
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.
Please list 10 teams with better d-cores.
Looking over each team, I'd can say that 1 or 2 teams have better d-men, and another 1 or 2 teams are very close to the Canucks d-men.

I can say that the Canucks easily have a top 5 defense in the league as long as Garrison plays like he did last season.

Nuckles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:31 AM
  #39
cheesesteak
Registered User
 
cheesesteak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JS19 View Post
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).

cheesesteak is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:32 AM
  #40
Sasso09
Registered User
 
Sasso09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 5,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuckles37 View Post
I don't know about calling Hartnell a 1st liner. He has only had 50+ points twice in his career, and he's 30 years old.
Flyers fans wanted Hartnell as far away from the team as possible last season before he started playing with Giroux.

I've seen the Flyers play quite a bit, and in my opinion Edler holds much more value. Philly would have to add B. Schenn or Couturier. Yep, dead serious.
But even then, that trade makes no sense for the Canucks, since it leaves us with a pretty big gap on defense.
Lol. Just my point... I don't know about Edler being a #1 D, he's more of a high end 2, maybe low 1. You're not getting Couturier for Edler. Couturier + Hartnell, you're losing Kesler+Edler... I know huge over payment.

Sasso09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:35 AM
  #41
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuckles37 View Post
I don't know about calling Hartnell a 1st liner. He has only had 50+ points twice in his career, and he's 30 years old.
Flyers fans wanted Hartnell as far away from the team as possible last season before he started playing with Giroux.

I've seen the Flyers play quite a bit, and in my opinion Edler holds much more value. Philly would have to add B. Schenn or Couturier. Yep, dead serious.
But even then, that trade makes no sense for the Canucks, since it leaves us with a pretty big gap on defense.
If you put Hartnell on the wing of the Sedins or with Kesler/Burrows/etc, he'd definitely break 60 points and at least 25-30 goals or more, in addition to everything else he brings.

The reality is this... Hartnell has played on the best line of the Flyers for 3 consecutive years, despite the rest of the players changing. He makes the players he plays with better for all of the things he does and until last season went very under-appreciated by fans (myself included). He brings points, line productivity, grit, sandpaper, heart and character. He's also lethal on the powerplay.

Broad Street Elite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:39 AM
  #42
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ ( ͡ ᴥ͡)
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Potato
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,989
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasso09 View Post
Lol. Just my point... I don't know about Edler being a #1 D, he's more of a high end 2, maybe low 1. You're not getting Couturier for Edler. Couturier + Hartnell, you're losing Kesler+Edler... I know huge over payment.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but I completely disagree.
A big, physical, smooth skating, 40-50 point d-man who is pretty good defensively is a #2 d-man? Wow, you have pretty high standards.

And even if you consider Edler to be a high end #2, he's still much more valuable than a 30 year old 2nd liner.

If Philly wants Kesler + Edler, it would cost Couturier + Hartnell + Schenn + Meszaros. (and maybe even more)
Kesler = Schenn + Hartnell
Edler = Couturier + Meszaros

(and I know it means nothing since a few picks were shockingly bad, but HF recently voted Edler as the 12th best d-man, 11th if you ignore Lidstrom due to retirement)

Nuckles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:43 AM
  #43
Sasso09
Registered User
 
Sasso09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 5,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuckles37 View Post
Please list 10 teams with better d-cores.
Looking over each team, I'd can say that 1 or 2 teams have better d-men, and another 1 or 2 teams are very close to the Canucks d-men.

I can say that the Canucks easily have a top 5 defense in the league as long as Garrison plays like he did last season.
Top of my head...

Rangers and the blues are the only definites I can think of. Boston, Nashville and Minnesota seem to play better defensively as a group.

Sasso09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:47 AM
  #44
deckercky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
If you put Hartnell on the wing of the Sedins or with Kesler/Burrows/etc, he'd definitely break 60 points and at least 25-30 goals or more, in addition to everything else he brings.
Canucks already have that in Burrows.

Hartnell would be a nice to have for the Canucks, for which there are other comparable options.
Edler would open a need for the Canucks, and there's no other comparable options realistically available.

In that regard, this isn't even close.

deckercky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:49 AM
  #45
NitHeel
Mucker/Grinder
 
NitHeel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Reading, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuckles37 View Post
I don't know about calling Hartnell a 1st liner. He has only had 50+ points twice in his career, and he's 30 years old.
Flyers fans wanted Hartnell as far away from the team as possible last season before he started playing with Giroux.

I've seen the Flyers play quite a bit, and in my opinion Edler holds much more value. Philly would have to add B. Schenn or Couturier. Yep, dead serious..
But even then, that trade makes no sense for the Canucks, since it leaves us with a pretty big gap on defense.
See, we had a nice thread going and then you had to go and say something like that...

NitHeel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:51 AM
  #46
Wilch
Unregistered User
 
Wilch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Under your bed
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 7,892
vCash: 500
No thanks. Love Hartnell but Edler's the only guy on our back end that can make a difference on the PP right now.

Wilch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:52 AM
  #47
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ ( ͡ ᴥ͡)
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Potato
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,989
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by NitHeel View Post
See, we had a nice thread going and then you had to go and say something like that...
It was never a nice thread, well except for Flyers fans because they would get a #1 d-man for a 2nd liner.

The Canucks would never trade Edler for such an underpayment.
Hell, I don't even get why some Canucks fans want to trade him, since it would leave a big hole on defense (since he is so valuable).

Nuckles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:54 AM
  #48
deckercky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasso09 View Post
Top of my head...

Rangers and the blues are the only definites I can think of. Boston, Nashville and Minnesota seem to play better defensively as a group.
Last year Minnesota wasn't even close (possibly team defence, but I don't even agree on that). This year...let's wait until Suter plays a game before annointing them as a top 5 defensive core (I think with Suter they may scratch top 10, but they still have issues for sure).

Canucks defence is somewhere around 5th to 8th best in the league IMO. Far from perfect, and definitely lacking that elite defenceman, but Edler is in the next group after the few elite, and his development is the best shot the Canucks have of getting one of those elite defencemen.

deckercky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:55 AM
  #49
Roo Mad Bro
U havin a giggle m8?
 
Roo Mad Bro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,632
vCash: 500
Done.

I would even add a little bit.

Roo Mad Bro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 10:02 AM
  #50
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ ( ͡ ᴥ͡)
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Potato
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,989
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckercky View Post
Last year Minnesota wasn't even close (possibly team defence, but I don't even agree on that). This year...let's wait until Suter plays a game before annointing them as a top 5 defensive core (I think with Suter they may scratch top 10, but they still have issues for sure).

Canucks defence is somewhere around 5th to 8th best in the league IMO. Far from perfect, and definitely lacking that elite defenceman, but Edler is in the next group after the few elite, and his development is the best shot the Canucks have of getting one of those elite defencemen.
Minnesota is far from being a top 5/10 d-core. They have Suter.....then Gilbert....and then Stoner, Scandella, Falk, and Spurgeon.


The Rangers and maybe the Kings have better defensemen.
Teams with d-cores that are as good/almost as good as the Canucks are the Sharks, Flyers, Coyotes, and maybe the Bruins.

I could confidently say the Canucks have a top 5 d-core.

Nuckles is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:11 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.