Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Mëds wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:27 am
Boeser is 23 and projected by many to be a 70-80 point winger who should approach 40 goals on a regular basis over 82 games.
Skinner is 27 and has only hit that mark once, came close one other time, and he has maxed out twice at 63 points. Up until the rumor about him getting a possible offer from Buffalo for around $9M on an extension, I don't think I had ever heard of anyone putting Jeff Skinner in the salary range of Sidney Crosby.
That's not to say I disagree with your point. If Boeser is wanting that much it only makes sense that Skinner would get something similar.
I don't disagree with the reasoning, but you're bidding against potentially 30 other GM's for Skinner, and nobody else can bid on Boeser. Skinner was paid $6M last season and was 12th in the league in goals. He would have the worst agent in the NHL if he could only get an extra $500K out of that season.
I wouldn't give Skinner anywhere near $8.5-$9M per season on a long-term deal, but someone out there probably will.
If the Canucks lose Edler and replace him with Gardiner or Myers or Zaitsev or a combo of these guys, this team is in a shit heap of trouble. For all the heat Edler gets from some on here he is a legit top pairing guy and the only one on the roster due to Tanev being constantly injured.
He plays some of the toughest 25 minutes in the league. The guy is a horse. He is far and away the second best UFA d man and it isn’t close. I don’t want to see Elmer capitulate on that NMC but would Edler take two years at 7.5 per year? Then re up after the ED? It saves Elmer from himself and Edler gets big bucks and can end his career here.
If Edler walks a bottom five finish is pretty much a lock
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
I was thinking 14m over 2 years, or 19m over 3 with NMC for first 2 and NTC for final year. Something along those lines. Edler has to realize that for the good of the franchise, he needs to be exposed for the expansion draft. Perhaps go as high as 21m over 3, with the movement protection listed above?
theman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:04 am
think he walks and we don't have that problem. This also means that we would most likely have to protect his replacement: Myers/Gardiner/Zaitsev
theman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:04 am
think he walks and we don't have that problem. This also means that we would most likely have to protect his replacement: Myers/Gardiner/Zaitsev
If he wants to win he probably should leave. This team is a few years away from winning and he is 33.
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
theman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:04 am
think he walks and we don't have that problem. This also means that we would most likely have to protect his replacement: Myers/Gardiner/Zaitsev
We wouldn’t have to protect zaitsev
Edler's age (33) is the biggest reason why we don't want to burn a protection spot on him. It has nothing to do with his current play or anything like that. It's forecasting based on typical trends. If we had a crystal ball and the Canucks could see that in 3 years Edler was going to be the same player he was this year and give us 70 games, then it's not an issue.
Myers, Gardiner, and Zaitsev, are all at least 3 years younger than Edler. That being said it's not unreasonable to think that Myers and Gardiner will want at least 5 year contracts. With that in mind does it not make more sense to give Edler a 3 year deal with protection that takes him to 36 years old rather than pay more (Myers and Gardiner) and still have to protect a guy who will be under contract until they are 34 or 35?
theman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:04 am
think he walks and we don't have that problem. This also means that we would most likely have to protect his replacement: Myers/Gardiner/Zaitsev
We wouldn’t have to protect zaitsev
Edler's age (33) is the biggest reason why we don't want to burn a protection spot on him. It has nothing to do with his current play or anything like that. It's forecasting based on typical trends. If we had a crystal ball and the Canucks could see that in 3 years Edler was going to be the same player he was this year and give us 70 games, then it's not an issue.
Myers, Gardiner, and Zaitsev, are all at least 3 years younger than Edler. That being said it's not unreasonable to think that Myers and Gardiner will want at least 5 year contracts. With that in mind does it not make more sense to give Edler a 3 year deal with protection that takes him to 36 years old rather than pay more (Myers and Gardiner) and still have to protect a guy who will be under contract until they are 34 or 35?
If zaitsev sucks as bad as some people say though we could make this trade and have a Luca sbisa situation.
I hope we don't trade for either Zaitsev or Zucker.
Zaitsev is not an upgrade on Hutton, not really.
Zucker, unless things are really being misinterpreted, isn't worth what we're hearing.
theman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:58 am
I was thinking 14m over 2 years, or 19m over 3 with NMC for first 2 and NTC for final year. Something along those lines. Edler has to realize that for the good of the franchise, he needs to be exposed for the expansion draft. Perhaps go as high as 21m over 3, with the movement protection listed above?
Problem is that trade protection expires June 30th. So if he has a 3-4 year deal and the second year has a NMC he needs to be protected because it is not an expiring contract. So if he wants more than two years it’s a NTC after year one.
His fear obviously is that Seattle would select him. Edler feels he has at least 4 more years and wants that final contract with the security of not having to move. We can’t promise to re-sign him after the expansion draft, it’s unrealistic and he knows it. His play could deteriorate, he could be injured, Benning could be gone, he could just not fit moving forward.
As the summer moves along he and his wife will become more comfortable with the idea of moving on. If someone offers 3-4 years at the coin he wants with a full NMC he should take it.
