Rumor: Elias Pettersson - No Deal Imminent (Aug 3)

[JT Milker]

Shot:

management thread is that way guys. kthxbai.

Chaser:

they got schmidt instead of tanev. you liked that move at the time. it did not work out. those are the breaks. you do not get 20/20 hindsight takebacks now.

 

[Blue and Green]

Of the last 50 or so posts in this "Elias Pettersson" thread, exactly two have been about Pettersson. If you want to argue about management, Hughes, Tanev, etc., there are specific threads for management, Hughes and ex-Canucks.

 

[Rick Rocket]

Of the last 50 or so posts in this "Elias Pettersson" thread, exactly two have been about Pettersson. If you want to argue about management, Hughes, Tanev, etc., there are specific threads for management, Hughes and ex-Canucks.

So I'll bet that Pettersson is going for 9-9.5m for 5-8 years.
Benning is going for 7.5-8.5 m for 15 years.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I’m not sure why so many people are going at Melvin for this.

Letting go of Tanev due to injury history/age (even on a 3 year deal) - understandable.
The alternatives (Schmidt/Poolman) - bad relative to what Tanev provided in calgary last year.

I’ll give you the inverse.

Trading a potential lottery pick for JTM to try to squeak into the playoffs - terrible process

Now, would I rather have had a 20 something overall pick or JTM? No, I’d take JTM over the pick because he provided surplus value and you’d be able to trade him for a pretty sizeable package after good utility.

Do you have issue with me applying what Melvin said except inversely with the hindsight benefiting management?

yes you can criticize the jtm trade as a reckless gamble even though it paid off. some might disagree on the odds but it is opinion.

my issue is that there was nothing wrong with the nate schmidt acquisition process. the poster in question supports exactly that kind of move and supported that move in particular.

the nate schmidt fallout was a bad year hurting his value and appears to include a trade demand with unknown turmoil behind it. short of trading him for tanev, what is done is done. there were no obvious tanev replacements this year. pretty much any result other than adding jones would be a net loss against expectations for schmidt last year.

the op does not mention that in pivoting to call the tanev move mind bogglingly stupid because poolman is no tanev. this criticism is really primarily founded on the unexpected negative outcome of the schmidt deal he actually liked. it's not fair comment at all.

it is the kind of tenuous reductionist compound logic crafted to arrive at a result that fits a narrative that makes discussion here so difficult.

 

[WishfulThinker]

I'm not a numbers guy but if Petey came in at 8yrs x 8.8mil I'd have to think both sides would be happy.

Flat cap shaves off a bit and he'll easily get all the endorsement bucks around a 'hockey' town like Vancouver. FAQ having all the sway in town should also open up more 'grey' savings for Petey.

Petey is awesome and I'd personally give him all the cash just because he made this team watchable again. But he is having a bit of trouble staying healthy so we are still paying for potential/projections instead of a full track record. Hopefully he can see that.

 

[BimJenning]

Is Tanev really better than Hamonic, Poolman, or Schenn in terms of what they can provide in terms of being a RHD defensive defensemen?

I'm not sure the gap is as big as people think.

Might want to rethink that one. Tanev pretty much crushed Hamonic in all the stats that mattered, from CF%, xGF, and xGA, all while having lower offensive zone starts than Hamonic.

 

[dbaz]

Might want to rethink that one. Tanev pretty much crushed Hamonic in all the stats that mattered, from CF%, xGF, and xGA, all while having lower offensive zone starts than Hamonic.

While I agree Tanev is definitely better than Hamonic. Taking analytics from a player on a stronger defensive team, and probably a team with stronger goaltending and comparing it to a player on a team that cant play defense seems like it might favour Tanev a bit.

 

[Deeds26]

Ah yes, Hughes and Tanev play a major role in Elias' new contract, thank you everyone to contributing to the matter at hand in this thread.

 

[Peen]

yes you can criticize the jtm trade as a reckless gamble even though it paid off. some might disagree on the odds but it is opinion.

my issue is that there was nothing wrong with the nate schmidt acquisition process. the poster in question supports exactly that kind of move and supported that move in particular.

the nate schmidt fallout was a bad year hurting his value and appears to include a trade demand with unknown turmoil behind it. short of trading him for tanev, what is done is done. there were no obvious tanev replacements this year. pretty much any result other than adding jones would be a net loss against expectations for schmidt last year.

the op does not mention that in pivoting to call the tanev move mind bogglingly stupid because poolman is no tanev. this criticism is really primarily founded on the unexpected negative outcome of the schmidt deal he actually liked. it's not fair comment at all.

it is the kind of tenuous reductionist compound logic crafted to arrive at a result that fits a narrative that makes discussion here so difficult.

But I don’t think Melvin was being critical of the process involved in trading for Schmidt.

He’s simply saying it didn’t turn out well.

 

[Hit the post]

The myth that Tanev "babysat" Hughes is BS. Two of the smartest dmen in the league, who can both pass and skate, pairing well together, isn't some surprise.

Tanev babysat Edler many o seasons that's for damn sure.

Hughes can't defend worth ****.

 

[F A N]

But I don’t think Melvin was being critical of the process involved in trading for Schmidt.

He’s simply saying it didn’t turn out well.

I think some posters are taking issue with the comment because it's meaningless "logic."

It's like if the Canucks traded Petey, Boeser, Garland, Hughes, and Horvat each for a 2nd round pick next summer (deals I would be opposed at the time), finish in the bottom of the standings, win the draft lottery, draft Bedard, and 3-5 years later if the Canucks win the Cup with Bedard say "I didn't like those deals at the time but given the choice between not making bad deals and winning the Stanley Cup, winning the Stanley Cup is a no brainer."

 

[Peen]

I think some posters are taking issue with the comment because it's meaningless "logic."

It's like if the Canucks traded Petey, Boeser, Garland, Hughes, and Horvat each for a 2nd round pick next summer (deals I would be opposed at the time), finish in the bottom of the standings, win the draft lottery, draft Bedard, and 3-5 years later if the Canucks win the Cup with Bedard say "I didn't like those deals at the time but given the choice between not making bad deals and winning the Stanley Cup, winning the Stanley Cup is a no brainer."

I think that’s a false equivalence to what Melvin did and I don’t really want to expand much further, but I somewhat get your point.

 

[JAK]

Pettersson
Contract

Should we give him full NMC? Or a m-NTC with lots of teams?

 

[rypper]

Pettersson
Contract

Should we give him full NMC? Or a m-NTC with lots of teams?

He won't be eligible for either until after he turns 27 or accrues 7 seasons. So if he signs an 8 year deal he could have trade protection in the last 4 years of it. Which I'd assume he would get some form of.

 

[JAK]

So I'll bet that Pettersson is going for 9-9.5m for 5-8 years.
Benning is going for 7.5-8.5 m for 15 years.

Exactly how is the GM going to offer a 15 years contract when it's not allowed in the CBA?

 

[JAK]

He won't be eligible for either until after he turns 27 or accrues 7 seasons. So if he signs an 8 year deal he could have trade protection in the last 4 years of it. Which I'd assume he would get some form of.

Yah. And I wonder if there can be some sort of mutual NTC. Like in Pettersson's contract to say that they cannot trade Boeser without discussing with him.

 

[JAK]

Cap will be going up $1m per year until escrow repaid in a few years.

Sounds like bridge is the best option for EP and QH.

 

[Petey But Really Jim]

Exactly how is the GM going to offer a 15 years contract when it's not allowed in the CBA?

because the manager has proven to be very stupid at hockey management

 

[JAK]

because the manager has proven to be very stupid at hockey management

Show me something the GM has done that is not allowed in the CBA.

 

[Petey But Really Jim]

Show me something the GM has done that is not allowed in the CBA.

Fined $50,000 for tampering in 2016.

 

[JAK]

Fined $50,000 for tampering in 2016.

Objection, that fine was against NHL bylaws. Not the CBA between NHL and NHLPA.

 

[Petey But Really Jim]

Objection, that fine was against NHL bylaws. Not the CBA between NHL and NHLPA.

Sure. Why not. The manager is still stupid at hockey management.

 

[JAK]

Sure. Why not. The manager is still stupid at hockey management.

That still does not explain the suggestion that Benning would offer a 15 year deal.

If you just want to flame Benning, go to the correct thread, this thread is to discuss Pettersson's contract, and saying the GM will offer something not allowed in the CBA doesn't help

 

[Petey But Really Jim]

That still does not explain the suggestion that Benning would offer a 15 year deal.

If you just want to flame Benning, go to the correct thread, this thread is to discuss Pettersson's contract, and saying the GM will offer something not allowed in the CBA doesn't help

I can see him offering a 15 year deal because his regime previously had to ask the league for cba help. Better?

You pick weird battles to wage.

 

[JAK]

I can see him offering a 15 year deal because his regime previously had to ask the league for cba help. Better?

You pick weird battles to wage.

No, the poster who suggested Benning to offer a 15 year deal, and yourself defending the offer, is picking weird battles.

If I offered Pettersson a time travelling tour so he can make money buying diamonds and gold dirt cheap, as compensation, that would be weird. But just as logical as the GM offering a 15 year deal that cannot happen.