Confirmed with Link: Pettersson Signs 8 Year Deal with the Vancouver Canucks, AAV $11.6M

[DFAC]

I just want to see him take over a game for once. When was the last time that happened? Used to happen when he was a rookie but now it seems like its far and few in between

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

I just want to see him take over a game for once. When was the last time that happened? Used to happen when he was a rookie but now it seems like its far and few in between

Unfortunately, Petey struggles when he doesn't have a good supporting winger cast. It doesn't help he's had a revolving door of wingers practically all season, making it that much harder to develop any consistency with them.

We definitely need to make it a priority this off season to get a stable top six forward be it Guentzel, Toffoli or whomever.

 

[Nucker101]

I mean Hoglander is playing great

I thought the line as a whole was fine yesterday

 

[F A N]

Of course, I've considered it. Could I be wrong? It's possible. Judging from the majority here, even probable. Then again, I'm not one to determine accuracy from group think...

The way you present your arguments suggest you either didn't consider it or you are... well... I'll won't go there.

Rather than have a conversation about the conversation: Why do you think Pettersson chose to sign when he did then? (If he was reasonable to continue to hold out)

You are still missing the point. Why does it have to be reasonable vs unreasonable? Can't both sides be reasonable or unreasonable? Why do you have to insist that one side is unreasonable here?

Ultimately, it's not like Petey strung management along. It turns out that he IS willing to sign a long-term contract with the Canucks. But this is a business and there's no contractual obligation for Petey to negotiate an extension. Had he become an RFA, there is no obligation on Petey's part not to listen to what other teams have to offer. Similarly, management has no obligation to offer an extension before Petey's contract expires.

I don't know why you are having such a hard time understanding basic principles.

 

[andora]

Right, but we don't treat each and every scenario as the regular course of business either. Most franchise player signings don't come with drama. For example, Doughty's post ELC contract (if that's what you're referring to) was recognized as a dispute between team and player. Well reported. He wanted to be paid more than Kopitar, and it became a story. Mackinnon re-signed, ho hum whatever. No deviation/drama, no story.

(Are you referring to Matthews coming off of his ELC contract?)

My final comment is dont use precedent as a crutch to artificially inflate the relevance of when pettersson signed when there are multiple precedents of when players sign and the unique circumstances with each organization.

 

[Bobby9]

Hmm. People worried about his strength? Weird.

I’m almost certain I’ve been ranting about it for months and you all said it wasn’t an issue.

Gonna be exposed badly in the playoffs. Major over payment at 11.6M. He’s a 9M dollar player. Points in the regular season are great. Points matter way more in playoffs and he and Hughes are gonna struggle.

 

[rea]

Hmm. People worried about his strength? Weird.

I’m almost certain I’ve been ranting about it for months and you all said it wasn’t an issue.

Gonna be exposed badly in the playoffs. Major over payment at 11.6M. He’s a 9M dollar player. Points in the regular season are great. Points matter way more in playoffs and he and Hughes are gonna struggle.

Do you feel he struggled to get pts in past playoffs?

 

[DFAC]

Hmm. People worried about his strength? Weird.

I’m almost certain I’ve been ranting about it for months and you all said it wasn’t an issue.

Gonna be exposed badly in the playoffs. Major over payment at 11.6M. He’s a 9M dollar player. Points in the regular season are great. Points matter way more in playoffs and he and Hughes are gonna struggle.

Let me guess - the Sedins were too soft to do anything in the playoffs?

Such an old narrative

 

[Bleach Clean]

The way you present your arguments suggest you either didn't consider it or you are... well... I'll won't go there.

You are still missing the point. Why does it have to be reasonable vs unreasonable? Can't both sides be reasonable or unreasonable? Why do you have to insist that one side is unreasonable here?
Ultimately, it's not like Petey strung management along. It turns out that he IS willing to sign a long-term contract with the Canucks. But this is a business and there's no contractual obligation for Petey to negotiate an extension. Had he become an RFA, there is no obligation on Petey's part not to listen to what other teams have to offer. Similarly, management has no obligation to offer an extension before Petey's contract expires.

I don't know why you are having such a hard time understanding basic principles.

The basic principles are understood. The question is: Do they apply? When many players in the same situation have not strung the team along (radio silence), then we should identify that act as being against reasonable expectations. What you're saying is that anything Pettersson has the right to do is a reasonable expectation, and that's false.

Please answer my question: Why do you think Pettersson chose to sign when he did then? (If he was reasonable to continue to hold out)

My final comment is dont use precedent as a crutch to artificially inflate the relevance of when pettersson signed when there are multiple precedents of when players sign and the unique circumstances with each organization.

As above, exceptions don't make the rule (as in, general expectations). Precedent sets the general expectations of the media/fans/management, and ultimately, had everyone turn against Pettersson for continuing his no-talk policy. And to his credit, he knew it was coming. You can call that artificial inflation; I call it reality.

 

[F A N]

The basic principles are understood.

Nah you clearly don't.

The question is: Do they apply? When many players in the same situation have not strung the team along (radio silence), then we should identify that act as being against reasonable expectations. What you're saying is that anything Pettersson has the right to do is a reasonable expectation, and that's false.

Please answer my question: Why do you think Pettersson chose to sign when he did then? (If he was reasonable to continue to hold out)

Plenty of players don't want to negotiate a contract in season. You keep harping on the point about Petey signing when he did. It really doesn't matter. False equivalency here.

Personally, if I was Petey and willing to negotiate an extension over the summer but the team wanted me to "prove it" (like you believe to be the case), I would have a chip on my shoulder. Would it be that unreasonable to wait until the end of the year to finish "proving it?"

Even your often quoted Friedman was talking about how the noise and incessant reporting here can change things.

As above, exceptions don't make the rule (as in, general expectations). Precedent sets the general expectations of the media/fans/management, and ultimately, had everyone turn against Pettersson for continuing his no-talk policy. And to his credit, he knew it was coming. You can call that artificial inflation; I call it reality.

Who is "everybody" who turned on Petey? Certainly if you followed the discussions we were not privy to a lot of the information. I believe that most of us were under the impression that Petey wasn't willing to commit long term to this team because he wanted to win but what YOU have been saying and the whole background to your arguments is that actually the team took the position that Petey needed to "prove" that he can repeat. That completely changes the discussion.

 

[Hodgy]

I do find it interesting though that when I made that thesis post (@geebster) to explain just how dead wrong Hodgy has been here, listing out all the information we have, the best response has been to dismiss the info gatherers arbitrarily, rather than finding a throughline in that information itself. (I hope people are making note of this)

You haven't shown that anyone other than yourself is "dead wrong" here, and basically everyone disagrees with you. You seem to be wholly incapable of rationally evaluating the credibility of differing evidence sources which is shown by your reference to preferring "direct evidence" over "rumours" as being "arbitrary". Ultimately, and I've said this before, we are never going to know with certainty why Pettersson signed and why he signed at the time he did, and I get that, but the idea that preferring "direct evidence" to "rumours" is "arbitrary" is beyond irrational since its anything but arbitrary. But yet, you continue to be obtuse and continue on with the irrational position that somehow your rumours are just as credible as evidence given directly from the parties. And again, I am not saying that rumours are always less credible, and I have acknowledged some of the direct evidence is likely not credible, but the general principle, that should be beyond debate, is that direct evidence should be preferred to rumours.

Can I take it from your silence that you have conceded that your use of the term "selection bias" made no sense at all in the context of this debate?

The fear of trade was the impetus for him to sign when he did.

Again, the rumoured trade came up like a month after Pettersson decided to reengage so it clearly wasn't the impetus.

And Pettersson always would have known there was a high likelihood that he would be traded if he didn't sign a long term contract this summer. This isn't rocket science, and its not like some rumour that he might be traded would be a surprise to him. It was a risk that he would have known existed when he decided to not sign last summer.

Getting paid was his motivation to carry this into the season.

This is almost revisionist history, and is obviously basically 100% dependent on the credibility of one rumour. During the summer, basically no one thought that the Canucks weren't willing to pay Petterrsson, or that Canucks' management were taking a "show me" position. In fact, this is wholly inconsistent with what management said last year, which was basically, we want to re-sign Pettersson long term and were waiting on him. Pettersson was coming off a 100 point season and it was almost beyond doubt in the summer that Pettersson would get paid.

The whole idea that he didn't sign in the summer in order to get paid more by management because he played like 50 extra games at the same PPG clip as last season is kind of ridiculous to me. Like, Pettersson is a top ten pick and then plays 325 games over five years in Vancouver where he's probably the highest scoring player in his age cohort over that time, and puts up 100 points in his last season, but management isn't going to give him 92 million dollars over 8 years unless he plays another 50 games where he just continues scoring at the rate he did the last year? Sounds really ridiculous and very unlikely.

So it doesn't make sense from a management perspective.

And I don't think it makes sense from Pettersson's perspective either. If Petterrsson was always trying to just maximize his contract, then why: (1) did he ultimately sign a contract lower than others predicted; and (2) didn't he just wait until UFA? He had already proved he was willing to wait, why not wait another year and a half at which time he'd undoubtedly cash in on a larger contract.

Dhaliwal said management took a 'show us' position first. Pettersson showed them he could repeat, and then they had to chase him.

This whole rumour never made any sense. See above.

 

[potatowejj]

Unfortunately, Petey struggles when he doesn't have a good supporting winger cast. It doesn't help he's had a revolving door of wingers practically all season, making it that much harder to develop any consistency with them.

We definitely need to make it a priority this off season to get a stable top six forward be it Guentzel, Toffoli or whomever.

I really like the idea of Pettersson with Hoglander and Lekkerimaki when he makes it up. At the very least, chemistry between Pettersson and Hoglander should be cultivated, especially if the team ends up moving on from Boeser and the Lotto Line is no longer an option.

 

[andora]

The basic principles are understood. The question is: Do they apply? When many players in the same situation have not strung the team along (radio silence), then we should identify that act as being against reasonable expectations. What you're saying is that anything Pettersson has the right to do is a reasonable expectation, and that's false.

Please answer my question: Why do you think Pettersson chose to sign when he did then? (If he was reasonable to continue to hold out)





As above, exceptions don't make the rule (as in, general expectations). Precedent sets the general expectations of the media/fans/management, and ultimately, had everyone turn against Pettersson for continuing his no-talk policy. And to his credit, he knew it was coming. You can call that artificial inflation; I call it reality.

Unless you work for the canucks you are simply rambling and using terms and phrases in a way to create a side.. this is hack job stuff in my opinion

 

[AlainVigneaultsGum]

Get a room already

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

I really like the idea of Pettersson with Hoglander and Lekkerimaki when he makes it up. At the very least, chemistry between Pettersson and Hoglander should be cultivated, especially if the team ends up moving on from Boeser and the Lotto Line is no longer an option.

Agreed. Hoglander has really gelled with Pettersson. My ideal scenario is when sign Toffoli as a sort of placeholder while Lekkerimaki develops and see how things turn out in a few years.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Unless you work for the canucks you are simply rambling and using terms and phrases in a way to create a side.. this is hack job stuff in my opinion

Pettersson admitted the noise got to him. What you're saying is that the noise shouldn't have been there because media, fans and a frustrated management are all idiots. I'm saying the noise was there because general expectations are built into the system. That deviations get called out.

You can keep thinking you have the right of it here. I have no issue with that.

You haven't shown that anyone other than yourself is "dead wrong" here, and basically everyone disagrees with you. You seem to be wholly incapable of rationally evaluating the credibility of differing evidence sources which is shown by your reference to preferring "direct evidence" over "rumours" as being "arbitrary". Ultimately, and I've said this before, we are never going to know with certainty why Pettersson signed and why he signed at the time he did, and I get that, but the idea that preferring "direct evidence" to "rumours" is "arbitrary" is beyond irrational since its anything but arbitrary. But yet, you continue to be obtuse and continue on with the irrational position that somehow your rumours are just as credible as evidence given directly from the parties. And again, I am not saying that rumours are always less credible, and I have acknowledged some of the direct evidence is likely not credible, but the general principle, that should be beyond debate, is that direct evidence should be preferred to rumours.

Can I take it from your silence that you have conceded that your use of the term "selection bias" made no sense at all in the context of this debate?

Again, the rumoured trade came up like a month after Pettersson decided to reengage so it clearly wasn't the impetus.

And Pettersson always would have known there was a high likelihood that he would be traded if he didn't sign a long term contract this summer. This isn't rocket science, and its not like some rumour that he might be traded would be a surprise to him. It was a risk that he would have known existed when he decided to not sign last summer.

This is almost revisionist history, and is obviously basically 100% dependent on the credibility of one rumour. During the summer, basically no one thought that the Canucks weren't willing to pay Petterrsson, or that Canucks' management were taking a "show me" position. In fact, this is wholly inconsistent with what management said last year, which was basically, we want to re-sign Pettersson long term and were waiting on him. Pettersson was coming off a 100 point season and it was almost beyond doubt in the summer that Pettersson would get paid.

The whole idea that he didn't sign in the summer in order to get paid more by management because he played like 50 extra games at the same PPG clip as last season is kind of ridiculous to me. Like, Pettersson is a top ten pick and then plays 325 games over five years in Vancouver where he's probably the highest scoring player in his age cohort over that time, and puts up 100 points in his last season, but management isn't going to give him 92 million dollars over 8 years unless he plays another 50 games where he just continues scoring at the rate he did the last year? Sounds really ridiculous and very unlikely.

So it doesn't make sense from a management perspective.

And I don't think it makes sense from Pettersson's perspective either. If Petterrsson was always trying to just maximize his contract, then why: (1) did he ultimately sign a contract lower than others predicted; and (2) didn't he just wait until UFA? He had already proved he was willing to wait, why not wait another year and a half at which time he'd undoubtedly cash in on a larger contract.

This whole rumour never made any sense. See above.

You can take from my silence that we had reached an impasse (you had agreed). No more, no less.

No one has to or should agree to the frame of evidence you have presented. It's foolish. You've taken this position before with the Willander rumour and have repeated that same mistake here.

The timing of the Friedman rumour fits with how events had unfolded, which are later corroborated by other sources (outside of himself). There was no indication that the Pettersson camp had decided to re-sign before Feb 27th, despite Brisson's lip service to the contrary (after he had signed):

- On Feb 24th, on HNIC, Friedman indicates the team is fielding trade calls on Pettersson. No rumour on Pettersson re-signing.
- On Feb 27th, there was a poll on who was going to get blamed if Pettersson walks on Donny and Dhali. Still no indication.
- On Feb 28th, Seravelli was the first to break the significant progress to a deal. First indication.
- On Feb 29th, Friedman reveals that Pettersson, facing the possibility he could move (Feb 24th), allowed his agents to resume negotiations. Support.

Multiple sources all outlining a specific pocket of time and the events within. None cite an early February decision.

Now, Brisson somehow deciding with Pettersson to sign in early February (post Lindholm deal), while conveniently not informing the team for the majority of that month, is a bit rich. Especially when you consider JP Barry going on Dreger's show in early January saying they had to reengage their client, with nothing coming from that month. Or, Irfaan Gafaar saying his agents don't even know what he wants (Jan). Or, Pettersson himself maintaining his offseason timeline despite 2 offers being tabled to him (Pagnotta, Dhaliwal). The agents were in support of this, so why meet in February at all? It's a nice story.



Last, the direct evidence of "I always wanted to sign here" and "wanted play cards close to the chest" should indicate an eye toward negotiations. Towards money. Not max money, but more money than management was willing to provide in the offseason. Some info to consider:

- On July 5th, Dhaliwal expressed that management was willing to wait, but he expressed a fear of Pettersson repeating his 100 point performance (money), and had speculated a $9m AAV at the top end. He specifically cites Barzal as a comparison. That's what was out there at the time.

- On July 6th, and this is likely pure coincidence, Dhaliwal says that if Pettersson repeats he could make Matthews $11.6m AAV... If he repeats.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Nah you clearly don't.

Plenty of players don't want to negotiate a contract in season. You keep harping on the point about Petey signing when he did. It really doesn't matter. False equivalency here.

Personally, if I was Petey and willing to negotiate an extension over the summer but the team wanted me to "prove it" (like you believe to be the case), I would have a chip on my shoulder. Would it be that unreasonable to wait until the end of the year to finish "proving it?"

Even your often quoted Friedman was talking about how the noise and incessant reporting here can change things.

Who is "everybody" who turned on Petey? Certainly if you followed the discussions we were not privy to a lot of the information. I believe that most of us were under the impression that Petey wasn't willing to commit long term to this team because he wanted to win but what YOU have been saying and the whole background to your arguments is that actually the team took the position that Petey needed to "prove" that he can repeat. That completely changes the discussion.

The discussion has changed because Pettersson didn't sign when the team was winning. That information we do have: 1st after 50 games, no signing.

You didn't answer my question, again. You've said that it doesn't matter when Pettersson did sign, but can't answer why he changed his position to sign.

If you're willing to quote Friedman, are you willing to accept the rumour he's put forth on why Pettersson signed?

Last, the 'show us' position from management is not coming from me. Dhaliwal cited this as a reason for the contract talks to drag on into the season.

 

[HairyKneel]

The discussion has changed because Pettersson didn't sign when the team was winning. That information we do have: 1st after 50 games, no signing.

You didn't answer my question, again. You've said that it doesn't matter when Pettersson did sign, but can't answer why he changed his position to sign.

If you're willing to quote Friedman, are you willing to accept the rumour he's put forth on why Pettersson signed?

Last, the 'show us' position from management is not coming from me. Dhaliwal cited this as a reason for the contract talks to drag on into the season.

Who cares? He’s signed for the next 8 years. Maybe reach out to his agent and find out the details and share them with folks.

It’s as bad as the clowns that keep bringing up who wanted him and who didn’t at the draft. I don’t care. He’s here. He’s a damn good player and Linden, Benning and Brackett are gone. It’s bizarre how many people want to win the internet argument.

 

[Hodgy]

Who cares? He’s signed for the next 8 years. Maybe reach out to his agent and find out the details and share them with folks.

His agent was already interviewed and an article was written on it, but @Bleach Clean thinks his agent was lying and prefers Friedman’s rumour on it.

 

[Hodgy]

You can take from my silence that we had reached an impasse (you had agreed). No more, no less.

So you actually think that my preference of direct evidence to rumours is "selection bias"?

And even if you think this, which is a pretty dubious thought that goes against the general principle that direct evidence should be preferred to rumours, it is kind of moronic to use a term to dismiss an argument where the use of the terms depends on the resolution of the argument. To put it a different way, and as already explained to you, your use of the term "selection bias" assumes the evidence is of equal credibility, and that assumption is obvious stupid since the credibility of the evidence is at issue.

No one has to or should agree to the frame of evidence you have presented. It's foolish. You've taken this position before with the Willander rumour and have repeated that same mistake here.

It is foolish to generally prefer direct evidence to rumours? Like, I've already agreed that we will likely never know the exact reason why and when Pettersson re-signed, but the general idea that direct evidence is preferable to rumours is sound. And again, I'm not even taking all of the direct evidence as truth here.

It would be good if you tried to frame your arguments more precisely so that they are spefically addressing my arguments, or aspects of my arguments. You are being too general, and I am honestly not too sure exactly what part of the way I am "framing the evidence" that you have an issue with, other than that you think Pettersson's agent is lying and that Friedman's rumuour is credible, which really is just a judgment of fact and not a criticism of my approach to evidence.

The timing of the Friedman rumour fits with how events had unfolded, which are later corroborated by other sources (outside of himself).

It doesn't, unless you dismiss, without good reason, Brisson's direct evidence on the timing. Brisson's direct evidence that they re-engaged during the all start break is logical and makes sense for multiple reasons (team had shown it was competitive, management had made a big acquisition for Lindholm and Pettersson was on a break and it would be less of a distraction).

Not only this, but Brisson's direct evidence is consistent with Alvin's direct evidence, which was that he thought Petterssson felt comfortable with the direction the team was going and signed as a result (not because of being pressured into doing so by a trade). And Alvin essentially addressed your trade rumour theory by more or less dismissing it by referencing the fact that teams are always calling about players who are not locked up long term (which is obvious and explains Carolina's interest).

So there really isn't much reason to believe that Brisson outright lied, especially when you consider that it doesn't appear he was specifically asked about when they re-engaged, and therefore, didn't need to comment on the reengagement date at all.

And the rumours about Carolina being interested in Pettersson at the deadline could have been true as well. It is likely that Friedman, without knowing that Pettersson had re-engaged a month earlier, and after hearing of the Carolina rumours and the subsequent signing of Pettersson, made an inference that those rumours played a part in Pettersson signing. But that inference appears to have been incorrect.

There was no indication that the Pettersson camp had decided to re-sign before Feb 27th, despite Brisson's lip service to the contrary (after he had signed):

- On Feb 24th, on HNIC, Friedman indicates the team is fielding trade calls on Pettersson. No rumour on Pettersson re-signing.

The fact that there was no rumour on Pettersson re-signing is meaningless. This management team has proven to be very tight lipped and it isn't overly surprising that the media didn't break this story until the last minute (as has generally been the case with Canucks news).

- On Feb 27th, there was a poll on who was going to get blamed if Pettersson walks on Donny and Dhali. Still no indication.

Again, meaningless.

- On Feb 28th, Seravelli was the first to break the significant progress to a deal. First indication.

Sure, but unless I am missing something, Seravelli didn't publish a rumour that these trade rumours were some sort of a cause to Pettersson re-signing. Seravelli publishing the trade rumour isn't inconsistent in any way with Brisson's evidence.

- On Feb 29th, Friedman reveals that Pettersson, facing the possibility he could move (Feb 24th), allowed his agents to resume negotiations. Support.

When you consider that Friedman's rumour is inconsistent with both Alvin's direct evidence and Brisson's direct evidence, it would stand to reason that part of that rumour was incorrect (i.e., the inference that the Carolina trade interest caused Pettersson to re-engage),

Multiple sources all outlining a specific pocket of time and the events within. None cite an early February decision.

I like that you are framing this like you have some large body of evidence all pointing towards your conclusion, when in reality, all of the rumours, other than the Friedman rumour, (and even then, only an aspect of it) are either meaningless and/or are entirely consistent with Brisson and Alvin's direct evidence.

Now, Brisson somehow deciding with Pettersson to sign in early February (post Lindholm deal), while conveniently not informing the team for the majority of that month, is a bit rich.

Who said they didn't inform the team for a majority of that month? The Brisson article talks about how the parties had "quiet conversations" for months before Petterrsson decided to re-engage at the all start game, and it stands to reason that after Pettersson' decided to re-engage they communicate this to management. The whole point, according to Brisson, was to get a contract done in advance of the trade deadline. Its absurd to suggest Pettersson decided to re-engage at the all star break but that they didn't communicate this to management for weeks afterwards.

Especially when you consider JP Barry going on Dreger's show in early January saying they had to reengage their client, with nothing coming from that month.

Why is this relevant since Brisson said that Pettersson decided to re-engage in February?

Or, Irfaan Gafaar saying his agents don't even know what he wants (Jan).

Again, why is this relevant? You seem to be having issues with basic dates.

Or, Pettersson himself maintaining his offseason timeline despite 2 offers being tabled to him (Pagnotta, Dhaliwal). The agents were in support of this, so why meet in February at all? It's a nice story.

I have given you multiple reasons why, Brisson has given reasons why, and even Alvin has speculated as to why, but yet you dismiss all of those....

Last, the direct evidence of "I always wanted to sign here" and "wanted play cards close to the chest" should indicate an eye toward negotiations. Towards money. Not max money, but more money than management was willing to provide in the offseason.

I don't agree. I think players will always say that they always wanted to sign in the places they ended up signing. Its a very normal thing for players to lie about, and for good reason, they don't want to piss off the fans.

Some info to consider:

- On July 5th, Dhaliwal expressed that management was willing to wait, but he expressed a fear of Pettersson repeating his 100 point performance (money), and had speculated a $9m AAV at the top end. He specifically cites Barzal as a comparison. That's what was out there at the time.

- On July 6th, and this is likely pure coincidence, Dhaliwal says that if Pettersson repeats he could make Matthews $11.6m AAV... If he repeats.

Both Brisson and Alvin have given direct evidence that contradicts this. But sure, keep on peddling this theory if you want.

 

[Bleach Clean]

So you actually think that my preference of direct evidence to rumours is "selection bias"?

And even if you think this, which is a pretty dubious thought that goes against the general principle that direct evidence should be preferred to rumours, it is kind of moronic to use a term to dismiss an argument where the use of the terms depends on the resolution of the argument. To put it a different way, and as already explained to you, your use of the term "selection bias" assumes the evidence is of equal credibility, and that assumption is obvious stupid since the credibility of the evidence is at issue.

It is foolish to generally prefer direct evidence to rumours? Like, I've already agreed that we will likely never know the exact reason why and when Pettersson re-signed, but the general idea that direct evidence is preferable to rumours is sound. And again, I'm not even taking all of the direct evidence as truth here.

It would be good if you tried to frame your arguments more precisely so that they are spefically addressing my arguments, or aspects of my arguments. You are being too general, and I am honestly not too sure exactly what part of the way I am "framing the evidence" that you have an issue with, other than that you think Pettersson's agent is lying and that Friedman's rumuour is credible, which really is just a judgment of fact and not a criticism of my approach to evidence.

It doesn't, unless you dismiss, without good reason, Brisson's direct evidence on the timing. Brisson's direct evidence that they re-engaged during the all start break is logical and makes sense for multiple reasons (team had shown it was competitive, management had made a big acquisition for Lindholm and Pettersson was on a break and it would be less of a distraction).

Not only this, but Brisson's direct evidence is consistent with Alvin's direct evidence, which was that he thought Petterssson felt comfortable with the direction the team was going and signed as a result (not because of being pressured into doing so by a trade). And Alvin essentially addressed your trade rumour theory by more or less dismissing it by referencing the fact that teams are always calling about players who are not locked up long term (which is obvious and explains Carolina's interest).

So there really isn't much reason to believe that Brisson outright lied, especially when you consider that it doesn't appear he was specifically asked about when they re-engaged, and therefore, didn't need to comment on the reengagement date at all.

And the rumours about Carolina being interested in Pettersson at the deadline could have been true as well. It is likely that Friedman, without knowing that Pettersson had re-engaged a month earlier, and after hearing of the Carolina rumours and the subsequent signing of Pettersson, made an inference that those rumours played a part in Pettersson signing. But that inference appears to have been incorrect.
The fact that there was no rumour on Pettersson re-signing is meaningless. This management team has proven to be very tight lipped and it isn't overly surprising that the media didn't break this story until the last minute (as has generally been the case with Canucks news).

This management team has proven to be tight lipped with Dhaliwal discovering the Willander target 17 days ahead of the draft, that their 2 offer meetings with Pettersson get leaked (first one in November, Friedman), and that 4 days after Pettersson is signed, Lindholm (so integral to EP's signing) is on the trade market (Weekes)... A veritable vault.

On that, your reasons for why Pettersson flipped his no-negotiation policy in February are that the team was competitive, Pettersson was on break, his comfort level and the Lindholm trade. All of these aspects would remain true until the offseason, so why not stick to his original timeline?

Allvin says all teams call. This does not refute that one call (CAR) stood out over and above the others. Friedman isolates CAR specifically. Rutherford also says "he didn’t know if the possibility of a trade ignited Pettersson’s willingness to sign a new deal." Meaning, it may or may not have...

And so, taken together with Friedman's report, who isolates the CAR rumour as the impetus to sign, both are considering it as a timely factor to Petterson's decision. Not that Pettersson had already decided to re-sign and a potential trade was a disconnected factor to that decision, unlike Brisson.

Again, meaningless.

Sure, but unless I am missing something, Seravelli didn't publish a rumour that these trade rumours were some sort of a cause to Pettersson re-signing. Seravelli publishing the trade rumour isn't inconsistent in any way with Brisson's evidence.

When you consider that Friedman's rumour is inconsistent with both Alvin's direct evidence and Brisson's direct evidence, it would stand to reason that part of that rumour was incorrect (i.e., the inference that the Carolina trade interest caused Pettersson to re-engage)
I like that you are framing this like you have some large body of evidence all pointing towards your conclusion, when in reality, all of the rumours, other than the Friedman rumour, (and even then, only an aspect of it) are either meaningless and/or are entirely consistent with Brisson and Alvin's direct evidence.

Who said they didn't inform the team for a majority of that month? The Brisson article talks about how the parties had "quiet conversations" for months before Petterrsson decided to re-engage at the all start game, and it stands to reason that after Pettersson' decided to re-engage they communicate this to management. The whole point, according to Brisson, was to get a contract done in advance of the trade deadline. Its absurd to suggest Pettersson decided to re-engage at the all star break but that they didn't communicate this to management for weeks afterwards.

Why is this relevant since Brisson said that Pettersson decided to re-engage in February?

Again, why is this relevant? You seem to be having issues with basic dates.

I have given you multiple reasons why, Brisson has given reasons why, and even Alvin has speculated as to why, but yet you dismiss all of those....

I don't agree. I think players will always say that they always wanted to sign in the places they ended up signing. Its a very normal thing for players to lie about, and for good reason, they don't want to piss off the fans.

Both Brisson and Alvin have given direct evidence that contradicts this. But sure, keep on peddling this theory if you want.

None of the rumours, even Seravelli's breaking news, align with Brisson's timeline. Not in the timing of when they are released, nor in what they reference of when the decision was made. Seravelli in video specifically states that things picked up in the last 3-4 days, not a month ago in his Feb 28th hit.

JP Barry interview is relevant because the agents couldn't get him to reengage. June to February, nothing. What changed in late February? They were approaching the deadline. What happens at the deadline? People get traded. When no TDL loomed, Pettersson didn't budge for almost 9 months.

Ah, so direct evidence of Pettersson saying "I always wanted to sign here" is a normal thing for players to lie about (Rutherford lied too, I guess?), but Brisson moving the impetus to sign away from the CAR trade rumour is not a normal thing for an agent to lie about? Certain direct evidence are lies, but other direct evidence are not lies... right.



I'll leave you with this:

Brisson spoke just an hour after his client put pen to paper on an eight-year, US$92.8 million deal, the richest in Canucks history. It wasn’t a firm target, but one that made sense if they were going to change course and negotiate a new deal before the end of the season, rather than wait till the end which had been Pettersson’s preferred course since last summer.

Why didn't this dollar amount make them change course in the offseason? Because it wasn't there then, and the TDL wasn't there either.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

 

[AlainVigneaultsGum]

I had a dream Petey got traded to Toronto for junk last night. It was really sad.

 

[Bobby9]

At 12M you don’t get to use the ‘I need better wingers’ excuse. At that salary you’re expected to make your wingers better.

Major over payment for this player. I’d say he may even be a 8.5 M player. I had it at 9 before but man oh man is he just useless some games.

At 12M you have to be relevant and on the score sheet for at least 70+ games.

 

[aquaweenie]

I mean Hoglander is playing great

I thought the line as a whole was fine yesterday

Hoglander is great but I don’t think he’s necessarily the best fit for petey. I think petey needs someone he can pass, play make and be creative with.

I think moving Boeser to his wing is a good start.