500k is likely what Gillis wants these guys to eat for the privilege of playing for this fine franchise. 500k x 20 roster players = a lot of money (Obviously 4th line guys are eating less, the Sedins more) I believe in what Gillis is doing there, you should too.
I never said it shouldn't be a consideration - only not the sole one.
500k is likely what Gillis wants these guys to eat for the privilege of playing for this fine franchise. 500k x 20 roster players = a lot of money (Obviously 4th line guys are eating less, the Sedins more) I believe in what Gillis is doing there, you should too.
But Edler shaving $500K off his market value is still well above the "Bieksa cap". Expecting him to come in at $4.6 million is asking him to take $1-2 million less than he'd get as a UFA.
But Edler shaving $500K off his market value is still well above the "Bieksa cap". Expecting him to come in at $4.6 million is asking him to take $1-2 million less than he'd get as a UFA.
Hence why I think we can go above the Bieksa cap to pay for Edler's potential. But not that much higher, especially if he wants an NTC.
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
Right now it would be. He still has a year left on his deal, if he wants to break the internal cap then he needs to separate himself from those guys. Right now, he's not in the discussion for best d-man on the team and doesn't deserve to be paid like it.
I'm shocked at how many of you want to throw money at Edler's point totals. You should know better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks
Bieksa may be older but he and Edler have roughly the same NHL/pro experience.
I would be against letting Edler walk for free as much as I'm against overpaying him for his potential that may never be realized.
I'm fine for letting him walk, but you guys have to ask yourself what's the next best alternative for letting Edler walk, because if you're willing to let him walk, there better be a plan in place to continue improving the team, which this move contradicts. Enstrom just signed for 5.75, and he's a slightly inferior defenseman to Edler, so you can imagine what the FA market for d-men would be. It would be nearly impossible to replace a player like Edler, and especially for you y2k, I know you're all about the short-term goals of the team. There is zero chance this team is better without Edler in the short-term, (or in the long-term)
I'm fine for letting him walk, but you guys have to ask yourself what's the next best alternative for letting Edler walk, because if you're willing to let him walk, there better be a plan in place to continue improving the team, which this move contradicts. Enstrom just signed for 5.75, and he's a slightly inferior defenseman to Edler, so you can imagine what the FA market for d-men would be. It would be nearly impossible to replace a player like Edler, and especially for you y2k, I know you're all about the short-term goals of the team. There is zero chance this team is better without Edler in the short-term, (or in the long-term)
I am not fine letting him walk, but if he wants $6M then I would trade him to a team that would give him that kind of money and get a valuable asset back. Then I would run with Hamhuis, Bieksa, Garrison, and Tanev as my top 4, with Ballard and Connauton filling in the bottom pairing.
I'm fine for letting him walk, but you guys have to ask yourself what's the next best alternative for letting Edler walk, because if you're willing to let him walk, there better be a plan in place to continue improving the team, which this move contradicts. Enstrom just signed for 5.75, and he's a slightly inferior defenseman to Edler, so you can imagine what the FA market for d-men would be. It would be nearly impossible to replace a player like Edler, and especially for you y2k, I know you're all about the short-term goals of the team. There is zero chance this team is better without Edler in the short-term, (or in the long-term)
You can hope & pray that BC born player wants to sign here (Hamhuis or Garrison to a lesser extent) for under market value; but that always doesn't work (eg., Shultz).
I'm fine for letting him walk, but you guys have to ask yourself what's the next best alternative for letting Edler walk, because if you're willing to let him walk, there better be a plan in place to continue improving the team, which this move contradicts. Enstrom just signed for 5.75, and he's a slightly inferior defenseman to Edler, so you can imagine what the FA market for d-men would be. It would be nearly impossible to replace a player like Edler, and especially for you y2k, I know you're all about the short-term goals of the team. There is zero chance this team is better without Edler in the short-term, (or in the long-term)
We can't compete without the twins either, so they get 8m each. Higgins is a great 3rd liner with 20 goal potential, he gets Brouwer money 3.6m. Hansen too, he gets 3m. Hopefully Booth doesn't get back to scoring 30 or we won't be able to ice a team with Edler making 6m.
I am not fine letting him walk, but if he wants $6M then I would trade him to a team that would give him that kind of money and get a valuable asset back. Then I would run with Hamhuis, Bieksa, Garrison, and Tanev as my top 4, with Ballard and Connauton filling in the bottom pairing.
Then you're probably going to complain at the end of the season when the Canucks get knocked out of the 1st round again. That's nowhere near a cup-worthy d-core
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr
We can't compete without the twins either, so they get 8m each. Higgins is a great 3rd liner with 20 goal potential, he gets Brouwer money 3.6m. Hansen too, he gets 3m. Hopefully Booth doesn't get back to scoring 30 or we won't be able to ice a team with Edler making 6m.
All I asked was to provide a suitable plan B that improves the team if you're fine letting Edler walk for what is essentially market value. You don't have to get all defensive over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble
You can hope & pray that BC born player wants to sign here (Hamhuis or Garrison to a lesser extent) for under market value; but that always doesn't work (eg., Shultz).
Right, it doesn't always work and also, we're at the stage where the team needs to target elite players, and those players in general rarely ever become available. How long are we going to wait before we find a suitable replacement for Edler? Are we going to waste a season like we did this past one when we didn't find a replacement for Ehrhoff?
Then you're probably going to complain at the end of the season when the Canucks get knocked out of the 1st round again. That's nowhere near a cup-worthy d-core
Nope, because it's still a solid D core and Tanev is likely ready to take the next step and be leaned on a bit more (or we can improve Ballard's role). As long as we get an impact forward in return (think someone like Patrick Kane for an example) we should be fine.
Nope, because it's still a solid D core and Tanev is likely ready to take the next step and be leaned on a bit more (or we can improve Ballard's role). As long as we get an impact forward in return (think someone like Patrick Kane for an example) we should be fine.
Edler for Tarasenko? St. Louis needs a top pairing LD to pair with Pietrangelo.
Edler for Tarasenko? St. Louis needs a top pairing LD to pair with Pietrangelo.
Intriguing, but I would be hesitant to pull the trigger for a player who's never played an NHL game and isn't a cant miss prospect. He looks promising, but so did Pavel Vorobiev at one point.
Intriguing, but I would be hesitant to pull the trigger for a player who's never played an NHL game and isn't a cant miss prospect. He looks promising, but so did Pavel Vorobiev at one point.
Well, he won the prospect of the year for HF, not sure how much more "can't miss" you can get.
All I asked was to provide a suitable plan B that improves the team if you're fine letting Edler walk for what is essentially market value. You don't have to get all defensive over it.
I wasn't being defensive, I was just pointing out how slippery that slope is when you start signing players out of desperation.
I don't think you can look at it as team w/Edler vs team w/o Edler, it has to be looked at as team w/great contracts vs team w/o
You don't keep getting great contracts when you start caving to Edler and Ehrhoff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanuck87
Then you're probably going to complain at the end of the season when the Canucks get knocked out of the 1st round again. That's nowhere near a cup-worthy d-core
We aren't going anywhere in the playoffs with Edler playing like he did this past season and playoffs.
As much as I like Hamhuis and Bieksa, there's no way Edler should get the same or less amount of money. As of now, Edler is the only proven guy on this team with the potential to be a legit #1 defenceman.
Hamhuis and Bieksa are more consistent, but they are not GAME-CHANGERS. They are players who do their job and can be relied on.
But Edler is more impactful.
$5.5m per, 6 years NMC is a discount.
$5.75m per, 6 years NTC is more likely.
I would go as far as $6m per, 5 years NTC.
I don't think comparing Elder to Bieksa's deal is fair at this point. KB3's deal after the season he has is now a bargain. If you were to say resign KB3 now, it'll cost you a lot more than last season.
When KB3 signed his deal, he was coming off 2 straight 22 point seasons and had injuries in both seasons. Last season, he posted 44 points and only missed 4 games. Huge difference in production between 2 the years before he signed his contract and the year after.
Elder on the other hand is coming off a career year with 11 goals and 38 assist for 49 points. Season before that (might have been his career year if he didn't get hurt), 8 goals, 25 assist and 33 points. Before that, 42 points in 76 games and 37 points in 80 games. Basically a consistent 40+ point dman who isn't bad in his own end. Elder was also an all-star last year while KB3 hasn't been in the all-star game (or youngstar for that matter). All-star game isn't all that meaningful but it does hold some value when it comes to contract/$ since being an all-star has some marketing value (doesn't really matter in Vancouver/Canada but it has value in other smaller markets that don't sellout every game).
Given the situation, its virtually impossible to imagine MG being able to convince Elder on KB3's cap.
D-man #1 plays on an elite shutdown pair 5 on 5 while putting up 20ish ESP's, 1st PK duty, 2nd PP duty.
Defenseman #2 plays offensive minutes 5 on 5 putting up 20ish ESP's, 2nd PK duty and 1st PP duty.
Either you can't see the "impact" that a shutdown pair has or you're putting a lot of stock in PPP's. Either way, you missed the boat.
Bieksa was the one making "impact" plays during our run to the finals.
Is there any evidence that suggests that Bieksa/Hamhuis was one of the best defensive pairings in the league other than the fact that we used them against the opposition's top line?
Is there any evidence that suggests that Bieksa/Hamhuis was one of the best defensive pairings in the league other than the fact that we used them against the opposition's top line?
Good thing that pairing is one of the best. Who needs an elite goalie with that?
Is there any evidence that suggests that Bieksa/Hamhuis was one of the best defensive pairings in the league other than the fact that we used them against the opposition's top line?
Good thing that pairing is one of the best. Who needs an elite goalie with that?
or forwards that are defensively responsible. Anyhow, I'm asking a serious question. I would like to know if there are facts to support the assertion that Bieksa/Hamhuis was one of the best shutdown pairings in the league. I'm not arguing otherwise, but I see the term "shutdown" being applied to a large number of players and it's hard to figure out if they are what they really are.
Edler is Vancouver's best defenseman. Best passer, best positionally, best on the PP, best hitter, best skater. He is worth more than any other defenseman on this team, AND he's also the youngest of our top 4.
I would be happy with a contract giving Edler 6M per year.
To say Bieksa is a better player is a little strange to me, but I guess i've seen stranger.
Edler is Vancouver's best defenseman. Best passer, best positionally, best on the PP, best hitter, best skater. He is worth more than any other defenseman on this team, AND he's also the youngest of our top 4.
I would be happy with a contract giving Edler 6M per year.
To say Bieksa is a better player is a little strange to me, but I guess i've seen stranger.
This is just you're opinion based on your own personal feelings. Your opinion is not supported by production that is backed up by statistical and advanced statistical analysis.
It's funny how everyone is happy about Gillis taking a moneyball approach, but when it goes against one of their favorite players all of a sudden we throw those principals out the window? People were also quick to use these advanced stats to suggest that Cody Hodgson wasn't that good and to slam him after we moved him, but when we are using them to judge one of our own players we throw the numbers out the window?
Consistency people...based on the evidence, Edler is NOT our best defenseman, nor is he being treated like he is by our team (nor should he be based on his production). There's more value in a defenseman than power play points, otherwise Marc Andre Bergeron would be a highly coveted highly paid defenseman.
Enstrom had the kind of year we keep hoping that Edler will and he got paid. I see no reason why Gillis shouldn't wait and see if Edler can put it together before giving him that kind of payday.
