HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Buyout clause - Do we use it?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-05-2013, 10:18 PM
  #226
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevecanuck16 View Post
As for your comments on Booth's personal beliefs, I can do nothing but shake my head at you. The first step to enlightenment is knowing that there are multiple answers to the same question. By expecting someone else to conform to your set of personal beliefs and to judge them for not conforming is literally no different than the expectations of your average religious zealot. Feel free to speak out about your beliefs, never prescribe them to others. So far, I haven't seen Booth push his beliefs on others, just speak openly and passionately about them. I suggest you do the same, but you won't, so whatever. Just know that you're talking to a History major here who is absolutely disgusted by the long, sordid history of that particular religion, but I'm equally disgusted to see such things from the side of reason and tolerance. I won't discuss this further, just realize that it isn't a bible-thumper here calling you a sinner, as you seemed to assume, just a regular old atheist calling you an a**hole.

And Bleach is right in that there are two separate arguments going on here. I think everyone in this thread is in agreement that Booth is not the ideal solution at 2nd line wing, but I think everyone also agrees he's the best current option. However, I still am flabbergasted as to the continued talk of a buyout.

In order to buyout David Booth he would have to:
1) Have a half-season occur (looking likely) and have the amnesty buyout actually come into effect (speculation, right now). Again, I think we agree that a regular buyout is not an option.

2) Play worse in it than he did last year because
a) If he plays about the same he will almost certainly retain value in a trade, and thus it would be impractical to buy him out.
b) If he plays better, he'll be in about the 25 goal range, which again would make his production near irreplaceable without serious asset loss.

3) Be outshone by Ballard, who makes as much and plays a less important role on the team, or else we would buyout Ballard (if there is an amnesty buyout, I find it highly unlikely it would be two rather than one, but I suppose that's possible).

4) Have Luongo's contract situation work out in our favour, because if it is punished by the new CBA and becomes an anchor (or has his cap hit revert to the signing team upon retirement) we will almost certainly have to use the buyout on him.

5) Have an improved replacement readily available without having to gut depth in another area, and this replacement has to have either the same salary or less, as the cap will have gone down at this point.

We will not acquire an improvement at that salary via a trade without giving up significant assets. Would you be looking to trade such a player for cheap?

If such a player is available from free agency, I doubt we'd be able to sign them for a reasonable salary. Especially given the more even playing field that will result from this CBA, and the signing frenzy that will undoubtedly occur. Again, I wouldn't hold my breath.

That right there is 5 conditions of various likelihood that would have to fall into place in order to buyout David Booth. I think it's fair, then, to state that such a scenario is at best unlikely. Given that, I think it's also fair to suggest that these thoughts are being driven more by personal dislike rather than facts, figures, or reasonable conjecture, given the repetition of these personal grievances. This is what I've been saying all along. Simply shameful, and again, personally unpleasant to see my personal convictions used in such petty ways.
Call me an ******* all you like, I believe that archaic and oppressive religious ideals need to be squashed. But thats neither here nor there, but its all you seem to focus on. You are the one who can't separate Booth "the hockey player" from Booth "the religious goon". I despise his beliefs but am still able to look at his game objectively (yes, I can still be objective and have a different view than yourself). You on the other hand refuse to admit that he's a one dimensional, power forward who brings very little to the table for $4.25m if he's not scoring...something he had trouble with last season, especially late and into the playoffs. You'd prefer to turn it into some sort of ficticious "personal vendetta" I have to get rid of Booth. Perhaps, this would clear things up (although I doubt it)...I would let the Pope coach our hockey team if I thought he would help us get a cup.



Quote:
Originally Posted by stevecanuck16 View Post
Just a final note, while the discussion on personal beliefs and freedoms, and the legitimacy of criticizing or judging others based on them, is certainly a rich and interesting discussion, I don't feel it belongs on this board and probably shouldn't have entered the discussion in the first place.

That being said, I would love to discuss it further with any of you, particularly Canucker. Again, I think we've got pretty similar beliefs, so I don't want to debate, but perhaps explain a little better where I'm coming from. To save this thread from devolving, I think this would be better done over PM. Let this be the end of such talk, and please feel free to send me a message. I will leave it up to you, and I will ignore the topic from here on out on this board. Let's keep this to hockey talk, with a hint of economics.

Honestly, I know where you are coming from with the "personal beliefs" thing and if you want to fight for their freedoms to try and feed god into our schools, governments and our lives in general, you go right ahead...I'm not that person. While you and others might find it intolerant of me, I'm fine with the label...I'm intolerant of ignorant viewpoints and I fight against that ignorance. You will not convince me that my position is wrong so messaging in regards to the topic will serve no real purpose...but if you wish to debate it, feel free...I always welcome debates on religion/beliefs, but I won't be initiating any.

And thats the LAST I will speak of "personal beliefs" in this thread.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 10:26 PM
  #227
stevecanuck16
Registered User
 
stevecanuck16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
Depends how this season plays out. I could see Higgins and Hansen flanking Kesler to assemble a line that could go head to head with the opposition's top players. Maybe Raymond rebounds to his 45-55 point form and becomes an option at roughly half Booth's salary. Kassian potentially shows improvements and some chemistry as a playmaker on Kesler's right side. Maybe Kulemin comes into the picture in a Luongo deal. Free agency will have a player or 2 that could slot into a top 6 role.

Lots of options could play out. Improvement won't necessarily be what facilitates change either. Getting under the cap would be the likely driving force behind Booth moving on...
To be perfectly fair, Sopes, I think my disagreement probably lies more with Canucker than you. All we seem to disagree on is whether its likely or not for Booth to falter this season, and neither of us will know who's right until after this season. (Did I just jinx it by saying this season?) Que sera sera is the phrase!

I agree with you that a $60million cap will likely spell the end of either Booth or Ballard, with their replacements being internal and potential downgrades. I think we just differ on the likelihood of such a low cap as well as the likelihood of said replacements being an improvement upon Booth. Que sera sera, again. But who knows? Kassian could win the Calder and force Booth out of a job. Or, Booth could be inspired by finally gaining a measure of revenge on Mike Richards, during the playoffs, and grabs an aggressive 30 goals. (I tried to find the hit on youtube, but you know what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, putting in "Booth hits Richards" only returns the more famous "Richards hits Booth". Egads)

Crazy things happen in hockey. Que sera sera.

EDIT: I realize Canucker's post may have made you miss the potential lineup I posted on the end of the last page. Any thoughts?


Last edited by stevecanuck16: 01-05-2013 at 10:50 PM.
stevecanuck16 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 10:50 PM
  #228
Spectrefire
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevecanuck16 View Post
Seems like we're finally starting to come together here, so let me throw this out. I posted a similar lineup before the season, with the caveat that Schroeder performed well enough in a scoring role in Kesler's absence to remain in a scoring role, allowing Kesler to focus slightly more on checking. Also requires Kassian to perform at a top-6 level in the NHL. This may be less likely to occur now, with the season starting later, but the basic idea is to have Kesler centering the "3rd line" which would actually play more than the 2nd and take the toughest matchups.

Sedin-Sedin-Kassian
Booth-Schroeder-Higgins
Burrows-Kesler-Hansen
Pinizzotto-Malhotra-Lapierre (4th line is a bit of a toss up, but I'm a huge Pinizzotto fan)

Sopel (sorry to call you that, btw. Sounds like an insult), I believe this would allay your worries about Booth needing a pass-first centerman. I love the Burrows-Kesler-Hansen line, and while this might hurt Kesler's offense it would show up in the W column and drive the other team insane.

I am a huge fan of that lineup and I believe it could be done under a pretty low cap, although it is tough to say with a few raises due...
I disagree with your lineup. If the season resumes, a more ideal set up would be this:

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
Booth-Kesler-Kassian
Higgins-Schroeder-Hansen
Malhotra-Lapierre-Weise/Pinizotto

Kassian's value to the Canucks would be wasted on the top line. You don't put a playmaker on a line that already have two elite playmakers. You put him on the 2nd line which is in desperate need of a RW playmaker.

Kassisn is a perfect fit with Kesler and Booth. They're all power forwards with plenty of foot speed. Kesler and Booth are shoot first guys and Kassian has high-end passing skills.

Schroeder would be comfortable between Higgins and Hansen, who can help pick up the defensive responsibilities, but are also capable enough offensively to not limit Schroeder's offensive potential.

Spectrefire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 11:18 PM
  #229
stevecanuck16
Registered User
 
stevecanuck16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectrefire View Post
I disagree with your lineup. If the season resumes, a more ideal set up would be this:

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
Booth-Kesler-Kassian
Higgins-Schroeder-Hansen
Malhotra-Lapierre-Weise/Pinizotto

Kassian's value to the Canucks would be wasted on the top line. You don't put a playmaker on a line that already have two elite playmakers. You put him on the 2nd line which is in desperate need of a RW playmaker.

Kassisn is a perfect fit with Kesler and Booth. They're all power forwards with plenty of foot speed. Kesler and Booth are shoot first guys and Kassian has high-end passing skills.

Schroeder would be comfortable between Higgins and Hansen, who can help pick up the defensive responsibilities, but are also capable enough offensively to not limit Schroeder's offensive potential.
I don't mind that one bit. Definitely lots of moving parts in this lineup. I definitely see your logic on Kassian, but I disagree that he would be put to waste with the Sedins. I think spending at least some time with them would serve to accelerate his development in that regard. I definitely see how he could help forge some further chemistry between Booth and Kesler. I am now slightly salivating to the idea of Kesler hounding an opposition star around the ice, only for that player to look up and see a grinning Kassian lowering the shoulder.

We both seem to agree that Schroeder stepping up would be a huge help to putting together three scoring lines. His playmaking skills might be a good fit with Higgins, I absolutely agree. Hansen would have to do the dirty work here, which is fine.

Any thoughts on the Burrows-Kesler-Hansen line? I admit that I may be overly fond of the idea due to the memories of their rambunctious success that one year. I think that line could win a playoff series single-handedly if it got rolling.

I dunno if you put much thought into the 4th line, but I'm assuming you'd still have Manny taking faceoffs? I'm wondering if, being statistically inclined, you share my notion that Malhotra is still a lot more important to the team's success than he is given credit for, despite his offense drying up? I really hope this offseason gave Manny the opportunity he needed to get better. He was amazing before the injury. A slight bounceback from him would pay huge dividends.

I am a big fan of Dale Weise, and think he has potential that rarely gets talked about, but given what I've seen of Pinizzotto I would take him. His energy is infectious, and I think our 4th line needs a dose of that. He is, however, injury prone. I think Volpatti taking this year mostly off will probably mark the end of his NHL career, as others have surpassed him. I'd probably give Mallet a longer look than Volpatti if fisticuffs are what we want.

stevecanuck16 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:21 PM
  #230
GoTeamDom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 942
vCash: 500
I think the buyout clause will be used.

I think we will acquire someone else's dead weight and buy them out as a sweetener in a trade. Maybe Komisarek or Jovanovski.

This is the new CBA loophole, ladies and gentlemen.

GoTeamDom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:28 PM
  #231
Eddy Punch Clock
Gold Jerry!!!
 
Eddy Punch Clock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chillbillyville
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoTeamDom View Post
I think the buyout clause will be used.

I think we will acquire someone else's dead weight and buy them out as a sweetener in a trade. Maybe Komisarek or Jovanovski.

This is the new CBA loophole, ladies and gentlemen.
Interesting idea; but I wonder if the league would allow that.

Other than that, I'd say bye bye Ballard.

Eddy Punch Clock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:35 PM
  #232
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoTeamDom View Post
This is the new CBA loophole, ladies and gentlemen.
Well not really, I'm sure the league knows full well this will be an option some teams will use. And it's not like no compliance buyouts will be something that will be available for the length of the CBA, there are going to be specific times when they can be utilized.

As for who the Canucks may buy-out, well this season will obviously determine who, if any, that will be, but I have to imagine that Keith Ballard will have a big target on his back.

Peter Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 01:06 PM
  #233
GoTeamDom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 942
vCash: 500
Keith Ballard at $4.2m isn't a liability. It's simply not a good deal. It's an inefficient contract for sure, but it's not holding the team back any more than Malholtra at $2.5m, for argument's sake.

Buying out Ballard then replacing him for a lesser $2m dman is not an upgrade. It's not even a more efficient use of dollars. What are you even freeing up cap space for? Weber? Oh right.

GoTeamDom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 01:12 PM
  #234
Vajakki
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country:
Posts: 1,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin View Post
Well not really, I'm sure the league knows full well this will be an option some teams will use. And it's not like no compliance buyouts will be something that will be available for the length of the CBA, there are going to be specific times when they can be utilized.

As for who the Canucks may buy-out, well this season will obviously determine who, if any, that will be, but I have to imagine that Keith Ballard will have a big target on his back.
If the Canucks don't pick up any dead weight in the Luongo deal (Upshall/Jovo/Komi etc), Ballard and possibly Booth (if he has a bad season) would be the only realistic targets for buyout. And that is only if they can't be traded, as I'd say there's around 10 teams in the NHL at the moment where Ballard for example would be an upgrade in top 4.

Vajakki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 01:14 PM
  #235
John Bender*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,713
vCash: 500
I think Ballard and Booth are both tradeable. I'd prefer to see Gillis use the buyout clause to acquire overpaid players as sweeteners to acquire young talent. Maybe Tampa re-enters trade talks if Vancouver can acquire Lecavalier along with something they really want. Maybe they hold on to Vinny for 1 year and then buy him out in the Summer? Not sure if the cap logistics work.

John Bender* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 01:17 PM
  #236
Eddy Punch Clock
Gold Jerry!!!
 
Eddy Punch Clock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chillbillyville
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanGrossman View Post
I think Ballard and Booth are both tradeable. I'd prefer to see Gillis use the buyout clause to acquire overpaid players as sweeteners to acquire young talent. Maybe Tampa re-enters trade talks if Vancouver can acquire Lecavalier along with something they really want. Maybe they hold on to Vinny for 1 year and then buy him out in the Summer? Not sure if the cap logistics work.
He may need to buy one of them out just to afford Edler.

Eddy Punch Clock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 01:18 PM
  #237
Vajakki
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country:
Posts: 1,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoTeamDom View Post
Keith Ballard at $4.2m isn't a liability. It's simply not a good deal. It's an inefficient contract for sure, but it's not holding the team back any more than Malholtra at $2.5m, for argument's sake.

Buying out Ballard then replacing him for a lesser $2m dman is not an upgrade. It's not even a more efficient use of dollars. What are you even freeing up cap space for? Weber? Oh right.
Off that Ballard's 4.2 million, 2 million goes to Edler's new contract (as ~5.2 would be realistic number) and the other 2 million gets you just as efficient, if not more efficient, bottom pairing dman (like Rome was).

That way the defense group is set with Tanev/Corrado in the mix and you don't have to take money away from elsewhere.

Vajakki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 01:22 PM
  #238
GoTeamDom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 942
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy Punch Clock View Post
He may need to buy on of them out just to afford Edler.
I'd trade Edler in that case. Look, Edler is an excellent player, but he has peaked. And the team is not a bonafide favourite this year like they were in 2010/11. We have three #1A/#2 defensemen in Hamhuis, Garrison and Bieksa. Ballard Garrison is an OK second pairing. Tanev plus either a high pedigree prospect or a servicable #5 is a decent 3rd pairing with upside.

Trading Edler to one of Ottawa, Pittsburgh or in a package with Luongo to Florida could net the team a bonafide stud prospect and some help at the NHL level. I'd do that in a second. Worth taking a step back in order to extend the window IMO. Also solves all cap issues.

Edler is not the difference between this team winning the cup and not winning the cup. Edler is also not the difference between this team making the playoffs and not making the playoffs. It's a worthwhile gamble (and business decision) to trade him since it looks like you can't afford him after this season anyways.


Last edited by GoTeamDom: 01-06-2013 at 01:40 PM.
GoTeamDom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 01:51 PM
  #239
mriswith
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoTeamDom View Post
I'd trade Edler in that case. Look, Edler is an excellent player, but he has peaked.


What evidence is there that Edler has "peaked"?

Also, with Edler gone, we are left with almost no offensive talent on the backend.

mriswith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 02:05 PM
  #240
GoTeamDom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 942
vCash: 500
How do you define offense from the back end? Ballard has a better first pass (albeit a little scary sometimes), Hamhuis and Garrison both have bombs from the point and Bieksa is a better puck carrier. Also, so what? Dynamic dmen like Green, Keith and Karlsson can have a transformative effect on a team's offense, but Edler isn't one of those guys. He's not even a shifty skater who gets into scoring position like an Ehrhoff or Jovo was. He's sure with the puck and has a hard shot and rakes on the PP.

Also, Edler has back-to-back seasons of 50 point/season paces (injury in 2011) and 42 pts before that. Stats aside, he has not progressed at all in any area last season, and was noticeably flat in a few games. And then there's the issue with his back.

Edler peaking wasn't necessarily a slam at him. He's still the best defenseman on the team and a solid 1A on any team. Just when I think about ponying up $6m for Edler and getting rid of Ballard for nothing, I'd rather just keep Ballard and take the high end pieces that Edler would bring.

Edler isn't going to be much better than he is right now. Not necessarily going to be worse, but I wouldn't bet on him developing into a true #1, staff ace dman like we would like.


Last edited by GoTeamDom: 01-06-2013 at 02:11 PM.
GoTeamDom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 02:15 PM
  #241
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoTeamDom View Post
Keith Ballard at $4.2m isn't a liability. It's simply not a good deal. It's an inefficient contract for sure, but it's not holding the team back any more than Malholtra at $2.5m, for argument's sake.
Malhotra at $2.5M is done after this shortened season. Ballard at $4.2M will be around for an additional 2 seasons, it's not even comparable.

Quote:
Buying out Ballard then replacing him for a lesser $2m dman is not an upgrade. It's not even a more efficient use of dollars. What are you even freeing up cap space for? Weber? Oh right.
Ballard right now is arguably the Canucks' #6 defenseman, or less. He's a luxury, not a necessity. You don't need to replace him with a $2M defenseman, it could cost even less, especially with a dropping cap. And why would the Canucks replace him? Well for one the Cap is going down $6M next year and if there is anyone they're going to cut loose, it's him.

Peter Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 02:17 PM
  #242
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoTeamDom View Post
How do you define offense from the back end? Ballard has a better first pass (albeit a little scary sometimes), Hamhuis and Garrison both have bombs from the point and Bieksa is a better puck carrier. Also, so what? Dynamic dmen like Green, Keith and Karlsson can have a transformative effect on a team's offense, but Edler isn't one of those guys. He's not even a shifty skater who gets into scoring position like an Ehrhoff or Jovo was. He's sure with the puck and has a hard shot and rakes on the PP.

Also, Edler has back-to-back seasons of 50 point/season paces (injury in 2011) and 42 pts before that. Stats aside, he has not progressed at all in any area last season, and was noticeably flat in a few games. And then there's the issue with his back.

Edler peaking wasn't necessarily a slam at him. He's still the best defenseman on the team and a solid 1A on any team. Just when I think about ponying up $6m for Edler and getting rid of Ballard for nothing, I'd rather just keep Ballard and take the high end pieces that Edler would bring.

Edler isn't going to be much better than he is right now. Not necessarily going to be worse, but I wouldn't bet on him developing into a true #1, staff ace dman like we would like.
Disagree. Malhotra gets a lock of flack for having a terrible first two months last season after not being able to train during the off-season, but his peripheral numbers were still very strong. As a 4th line center, I have no issue with his 2.5 million for what he'll provide. He could also recapture his 2010-2011 form with more time to train over the past 7+ months.

Ballard doesn't provide much, given that he can't make it into the lineup half the time. And I don't see how Ballard has a good first pass. He's more likely to try to Bobby Orr the puck up ice than make a good outlet pass...

Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 02:20 PM
  #243
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoTeamDom View Post
I'd trade Edler in that case.
So you're plan is to move Edler and hang onto Ballard at $4.2M?

Peter Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 02:23 PM
  #244
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,799
vCash: 500
I think Mike Gillis will use both buyout options over the next 1 1/2 seasons, and Booth/Ballard are obvious targets. However until the Luongo trade is completed, we really don't know what our team will look like. To sweeten the deal, we might have to take a player who would likely be bought out, or Ballard or Booth could be components going the other way. So I don't think Gillis will be trigger happy with the buyout clause.

LeftCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 02:40 PM
  #245
GoTeamDom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 942
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin View Post
So you're plan is to move Edler and hang onto Ballard at $4.2M?
If it's for value, then yes. Garrison steps in for Edler. Is Ballard really that big of a downgrade on Salo? I don't think it is. Third pairing is Alberts-Tanev. It's serviceable and probably not what we'd see if Edler got traded.

Hamhuis Bieksa
Ballard Garrison
Alberts Tanev

It's OK. Not the best in the league but far from the worst. Don't forget we also have Schneider in net and forwards who actually backcheck.

I'm also assuming you get stud prospects back for Luongo/Edler and some NHL-calibre help.

GoTeamDom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 02:50 PM
  #246
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,218
vCash: 500
Wow...Edler is the closest thing we are going to have to a #1 dman. Why would we move him?

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 02:51 PM
  #247
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Sidebar
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burger King bathroom
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,513
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
Wow...Edler is the closest thing we are going to have to a #1 dman. Why would we move him?
Because unproven prospects who likely wont be as good as Edler for many years > Edler

__________________

Richer's Ghost made my avatar
Nuckles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 03:14 PM
  #248
Vajakki
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country:
Posts: 1,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuckles37 View Post
Because unproven prospects who likely wont be as good as Edler for many years > Edler
Ah yes, the HFBoards logic. Why keep a star player when you can trade it for future star players. Saves cap space and everything. Also does very well with the current Canucks team that has few years left in the current window.

Actually laughed out loud at the "Ballard has a better first pass" part. It's like we've been watching a different game. Oh well. First day back here after the lockout and I'm already sad and flabbergasted. HFBoards, never change.

Vajakki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 03:32 PM
  #249
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vajakki View Post
Actually laughed out loud at the "Ballard has a better first pass" part. It's like we've been watching a different game.
Me too, I was getting ready to post exactly this.

I'd rather have Edler and nothing than Keith Ballard and whatever we can get for an impending UFA. It would take one hell of a deal to convince me that a defense with a $4.2m player who is fourth or fifth best by default is a good way to manage the cap. As for why Keith Ballard can't replace Sami Salo, his complete inability to play the right side is a good place to start.

dave babych returns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 04:08 PM
  #250
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoTeamDom View Post
If it's for value, then yes. Garrison steps in for Edler. Is Ballard really that big of a downgrade on Salo? I don't think it is.
Ballard wouldn't be replacing Salo, he'd be replacing Edler and he's a huge downgrade. Garrison is Salo's replacement and probably a decent upgrade, but that still leaves a huge downgrade from Edler to Ballard.

Quote:
I'm also assuming you get stud prospects back for Luongo/Edler and some NHL-calibre help.
Personally I'd rather have the best team that can compete now and not collect "shiny prospects". If the team can acquire a top 2 defenseman in a Luongo trade I could see a possibility of moving Edler, but I highly doubt they'll get that. If there's a choice between buying out Ballard in order to re-sign Edler, or keeping Ballard and moving Edler for futures, I pick the former, easily.

Peter Griffin 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 03:31 AM.

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.