05-09-2013, 12:47 PM #81
IT wouldn't look good to trade a player away, who you just offered an extension, just before his NTC kicks in because the new contract isn't even in effect yet.
Sure you could do that, but don't expect players to want to play for your club.
I'm not worried that the Canucks are the new Flames, because the NTC are with decent players still. When the NTC were given to 3rd line type players, who were overpaid too, that was a mess.
Edler is still a decent dman. I wouldn't be in a rush to get rid of him. But you need a good defensive coach to teach him how to be a better defenceman.
Last edited by tiger tiger; 05-09-2013 at 12:55 PM.
05-09-2013, 01:57 PM #82
My thinking on Edler is much like the Grabner situation was. They got rid of him because they "already have a Mason Raymond". At the time I thought Grabner was the better of the two.
Now you look at Edler and you look at Garrison and you have a solid defensive defenseman with a huge shot from the point and a willingness to rush occasionally in Garrison and the exact same thing except replace "solid" with "streaky".
I just don't think he's going to be the Lidstrom they say he is. Garrison does the same offensive job with less defensive liability. I do like Edler , but I saw his play in Kelowna when he was in junior. No one here had any idea why he was drafted. He was terrible here and this season has been a reminder of that.
05-09-2013, 06:33 PM #83
05-09-2013, 09:18 PM #84
05-09-2013, 10:07 PM #85
05-10-2013, 11:36 AM #86
Ok, yeah. Edler's going nowhere. Too bad, could be huge return for him.
At the same time, Gillis seemed to imply that NTCs are pretty meaningless in the end during his presser yesterday. I also got the feeling that a few things have been decided despite his claims otherwise, notably buying out Booth and Ballard and letting Raymond walk.