With Shea Weber locked into a 14-year contract and Tobias Enstrom signing a five-year contract extension with the Jets yesterday, Vancouver defenseman Alex Edler becomes the biggest prize in the potential 2013 unrestricted free agent market for D-men.
But will Edler ever make it to the open market? I suspect the answer is no.
It is both in his own best interests and the best interests of Mike Gillis and the Canucks to get an extension done with the 2012 All-Star participant. For the Canucks, re-signing Edler sooner rather than waiting til next year creates greater cost certainty and avoids the sort of mass bidding war situation we have seen with the top free agents this year.
For Edler, re-signing ahead of the expiration of the CBA also creates greater security for him. There is even a good benchmark to use: Enstrom's new five-season deal with a $5.75 million cap hit and a full no-movement clause. I would expect a new deal for Edler (who currently makes $3.25 million) to come in right around Enstrom's deal.
That would easily eclipse the $4.5 million cap hit on the six-year deal that Vancouver teammate Dan Hamhuis signed in 2010. It would shoot far past the $4.6 million apiece that Kevin Bieksa and Jason Garrison are getting on their current long term deals. The Canucks will also pay Keith Ballard $4.2 million for the next three years.
I know some folks will say that this is an awful lot of cap space to devote to the blueline. But keep in mind that:
1) Defense comes at a premium and it is expensive to lock up players in long terms deals; but not as expensive as paying players on the open market.
2) The Canucks will divest themselves -- sooner or later -- of Roberto Luongo's contract, and that will free up some money elsewhere for Edler and others.
The big question right now, though, is Edler worth a contract that will easily rise north of $5.5 million per season? Is he enough of a bonafide top-pairing player to commit the number of years and dollars he's looking for?
Rumor updates coming later.... stay tuned!
Join the Discussion:
»