OffThePost.org

yeah , and thats where MG and I might disagree caz he might pursure more veteran talent ... but I really would like to see more youth. Speaking of Kesler and co. Its true if the Sedins were gone and the Kesler line was all we had then they would get shut down but thats assuming they have absolutely nothing to show for the Sedins.. the but point of trading the Sedins is to aquire more Kesler type kids. So in theory they can shut down one Kesler line but the other "kesler lines" will produce.

This goes to building the team identity. Should MG pursue more players like Kesler and Burrows..basically speed and agression. Or more methodical puck controll cyclers like the Sedins.

The other thing on my mind is that the Sedins both just turned 28 years old,I believe I read somewhere that the average NHL player reaches his prime at between 27-32 years of age,If we can keep them at a decent price than do we really want to dump them in the prime of their careers??

No, I'm with freaky on this... You can't just let two 70+ points guys walk out the door and hope to replace them and their production through the UFA route. I still believe it's early, the Sedins are creating chances, but just not finishing them. One can argue that they aren't a true #1 line, but they'd be a hulluva #2 line (assuming the 'Nots have a better line to call their #1).

Cannots Luvah's No-Love-for-Sedin reminds me that Jyrki21 has asked me to help come up with a sig/avatar for Luvah... I think I can come up with one soon...

yeah , J21 pwns me , so do what you want with sig and avatar. and Im calling expiry date on Saskhab and UEFACUP2008 or whatever his name is.

but you guys are only saying keep them under your own perfect scenarios. Now I already stated they need ot be moved no matter what. Consider other real possibilities

*edit ..rephrased question*

Let me rephrase that question to better ask yourselves what you really feel... whats the highest you would pay before you would say , let them go via trade or UFA?

5.25 mil.

And what or whom would you expect back for the twins?? and why do you think it would be an improvement??

Considering the conversations going on in here,Maybe the thread title should be changed to Who should stay and Who should go

Trading and "letting them go" are two completely different things.

Letting them go should mean you have a backup plan, but that just means overpaying for a different UFA, and this team rarely gets good ones anyway. (Letting them walk with no backup plan is obviously pointless unless you need cap relief). Trading them is completely different -- you need a dancing partner, and I don't think the Canucks will get realistic offers.

_________________

You talking about trading them to the same team or different teams?

They don't have no-trade clauses

You'd probably get a better return trading them to different teams than one team because of the cap #'s involved, if trading them is what they want to do.

_________________
Thanks Chuck, E.L. and Harmy!

either way , whats your price on either front?

For eg. if the Sedins want 7M no less.. are you keeping them caz you cant trade them and you dont have plan B?so you just sign them caz its all you have in options. Whats the price where you say .. we're better off with you guys going UFA or trading you for whatever we can get. Could be 8M or 10M? no wrong answer i just want ot see where their value is with each of you guys.

I'll further comment to everybody after more people respond to this.

and yeah Kylos , get on the ball and change the title! jk

Recently, JP Barry has hinted that the twins would be willing to agree to not having a NTC if they were only traded together... So very likely, the twins would only accept being traded if they were traded together, which would likely limit who can afford them as you suggest. Conceivably, if there were a decent deal on the table for each of them separately, then MG would have to consider it, but I can't see him doing that until the trade deadline.

Non Canuck fans can answer this too.. set aside your own cap woes , just looking for pure market value.. how much would pay the Sedins to play for your team as UFA? no wrong answers here. Dont worry about your real cap space. Just hypothetically...

*Im not baiting anybody or trying ot trap anybody.. im sincerely looking to see what their market value is amongst everybody here

the media were half joking that they arent seeking a NTC but a 'No Seperation Clause' lol

Warning: economics talk ahead.


Market value is a mean figure, though, based on an aggregation of all teams' individual needs. Fans have a tendency to assign players values based on some paradigm, but the reality is that what any given team will pay for a player depends on how much that team needs the player at that time. With only 30 teams in the NHL (as opposed to millions like in a real-life market), this can lead to some pretty skewed results, because there are huge differentials in current needs and abilities to pay.

So asking people where they draw the line for signing the Sedins in the abstract isn't a really useful exercise. Is Mats Sundin "worth" the $10M that Mike Gillis was prepared to pay him? If that (and not a penny less) is what it were to take to sign him, then that would be his value to the Canucks -- but few other teams -- because they had the cap space and because they would have had to lure him out of quasi-retirement to do it. Not to mention getting him without giving up non-cash assets. Its easy for other teams who either don't need him, or can get him for less to say "That's a stupid offer, he's not worth that!" The needs at the time for the one team dictate the price.

Similarly, if the Canucks have no other players to step in, then the Sedins are worth more to them than they would be otherwise, even if you think it's "too much" because of comparables and what not. If we can't acquire those comparables for free, then it doesn't matter. (This is why crappy free agents break the bank in lean years, their value only goes up because of supply shortages. Even though far better players who became free agents in bumper crop years get paid less).

All I'm saying is that we can draw a line in the sand and say, "No more than $5 million!" When the time comes, though, we may have to pay more whether we think it's "just" or not. Refusing to cross that line in the sand is rarely a real option for lack of alternatives.

_________________

c;mon dude , its not that hard of a question

You want them resigned ASAP..
they want 5M today , you resign them?

they want 6M today, you resign them?

they want 7M today ,you resign them?


is this really a complicated question?

Yes, because it depends what the alternatives are.

If we're talking today, though -- this wasn't clear to me -- I'd probably do it for sure up to $5.5 and wait-and-see with anything higher. That doesn't mean I wouldn't go higher, though, because the Canucks may not have a choice later.

_________________

It comes down to Sask's question, which applies to both the Sedins AND Ohlund. Who is a core player, who isn't?

I'll say it again--if I were Mike Gillis I'd tell Barry that the Sedins get $7-8 million to split between the two of them, no more. They're not really two separate players so quit treating them as such. Give any more than that and you'll forever be trying different players to try and maximize their potential. Many players have come and gone, like Geoff Sanderson, Martin Rucinsky, Trent Klatt, Trevor Linden, Anson Carter, Todd Bertuzzi, and Taylor Pyatt. Hell, even Naslund didn't seem to really click with them last season. Why Pyatt suddenly doesn't work with them any longer is another mystery. It's a headache best left for another GM and another organization.

So let me update this , the price you guys would go right now before saying talk to me later

Tuz 5.25
J 5.5
Av either will offer no raise to 500K each

Right now, I'd go as high as (just to be different) $6M each for three years, but no NSC or NTC.

Ohlund has been on a bit of a decline but I'd still want him around, so three more years at $3.5M avg ($4, 3.5, 3) - probably overpaying but I wouldn't mind seeing him retire as a Nuck.

Salo, I'd see if he would be willing to waive his NTC at the [url]2011 deadline[/url](not likely).

Mitchell, I'd like to stick around, too, if nothing else to mentor Sauve. I can't see Rahimi making the cut anytime soon.

Starting at Luongo, I'd keep Edler and BXA because of their youth, keep on Ohlund and Mitchell to stabilize the d and for their experience, and try to groom Sauve into #6/7 role next season. That may be a tall order given his youth, but I think #6 d-men like Davison, Nycholat and O'Brien are plentiful and could buy them time.

Between Ohlund / Mitchell / Salo, I think we'd be lucky to get a solid 164 man-games a season.

After my rant on OTP Board II, all of you must know how I'm going to answer the original question. If Nonis, Linden, Naslund, Morrison and Cooke paid the price for Vancouver missing the playoffs last season, then so should Viggy Stardust and his meat-headed ideas on how the game is played. He can go coach Byron Ritchie in Europe or Jeff Cowan in Toledo or wherever for all I care.