The Pettersson and Hughes Contract Thread | Tick tock...

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Last one was over 1,000. Continue here.

Click to read more...

 

[Sneezy]

The latest rumour is 8x$8 for QH and 3x$8 for EP.

There was a post on the benefit of QH for that term, right now it looks bad but if he can continue to improve (he turns 22 in October) and TG plays a better system this will be a steal of a deal in future years. if he continues to be a liability in his own end then it will be a draw.

EP - this seems like a typical bridge deal, a little on the high side but if he can move in to the 1 PPG then it is a good deal. His next contract will be probably $10M+ for 8 years and the NHL will have a better grasp of the cap increases.

Edit - there is also talk of Tkahcuk in Ottawa at 8x$8M but still no signing

 

[J Corso]

Had he signed eight years at $11M he would have made $88M in those 8 years. Great money, sure. But if he signs five years at $11M ($55M) then resigns a mega deal at $14M AAV he will have made $97M in that same eight year window (five years at $11M, first three years of the new deal at $14M). $97M > $88M. Which would you take?

And if he suffers a serious injury $55 < $88. And he's risking $33 million for just a $9 gain.

I would take the $88 every time and so would most guys. You really don't understand why people value long term security ?

 

[Jay Cee]

The thing about Hughes is dmen get paid for production. It is only a matter of time. If he wants to sign long term at a reasonable price, I say jump on it. It would be a tough pill to swallow an 8 mil bridge for Pettersson though.

 

[4Twenty]

And if he suffers a serious injury $55 < $88. And he's risking $33 million for just a $9 gain.

I would take the $88 every time and so would most guys. You really don't understand why people value long term security ?

$14m x 8 is a lot.

Much more likely teams willing to go above and beyond that for a 26/27 year old than a 29/30 year old.


I get $33m is a lot you still have $55m. It’s not 33 - 0.

You think Mackinnon is happy he signed for so long? He is doing what you ascribe and probably lost more than $33m already.

 

[dbaz]

unfortunately you probably have to deal with that number for hughes even though i think 6-7 is more where he should be based on now, but you are paying for the future and hopefully some progression. these are his age 22-29 seasons, and probably will be his best. unfortunately as a smaller dman who relies on speed/shiftiness, if the canucks do start making the playoffs more often hes going to take a lot of punishment and its going to hurt his best assets to the point where i see this being his one big contract.

 

[Sneezy]

$14m x 8 is a lot.



You think Mackinnon is happy he signed for so long? He is doing what you ascribe and probably lost more than $33m already.

I believe the Mackinnon contract is something every player and agent looks at and it forms part of their strategy and negotiations. There was a media person a couple days ago taking about Mathews contract and he was surprised more players were not going after that type of contract, short term, good money but way more control for the player to pick where they want to play.

This really only works for top end players but I can see players trying to get this type of contract.

 

[Hit the post]

The thing about Hughes is dmen get paid for production. It is only a matter of time. If he wants to sign long term at a reasonable price, I say jump on it. It would be a tough pill to swallow an 8 mil bridge for Pettersson though.

Probably why Myers was able to get $6 million per year (and he's a #4).

 

[Melvin]

$14m x 8 is a lot.

Much more likely teams willing to go above and beyond that for a 26/27 year old than a 29/30 year old.


I get $33m is a lot you still have $55m. It’s not 33 - 0.

You think Mackinnon is happy he signed for so long? He is doing what you ascribe and probably lost more than $33m already.

Maybe not, but when you're 20 years old and someone offers you $44,000,000 it's kinda hard to say no. I mean there's a human factor here that is being somewhat ignored.

And he's still going to hit UFA at 29 like Tevaras did.

 

[4Twenty]

Maybe not, but when you're 20 years old and someone offers you $44,000,000 it's kinda hard to say no. I mean there's a human factor here that is being somewhat ignored.

And he's still going to hit UFA at 29 like Tevaras did.

Part of the human factor is getting to choose where you play and live.

Shorter lesser salaried contracts are still going to make these stars $15-25m on a bridge anyways. It’s not $44m or whatever but it’s lots and also buys you freedom earlier.

 

[Peen]

@MarkusNaslund19 since you requested @s

In regards to yesterday’s discussion:

 

[Sneezy]

@MarkusNaslund19 since you requested @s

In regards to yesterday’s discussion:

And this offers absolutely nothing to the discussion.

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

And this offers absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Humour? Levity?

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

The rumoured deals of 8x8 for Hughes and 8x3 for Pettersson are literally the reverse of what should be done. Pettersson should get the 8x8 and Hughes should get the 8x3 (well, he should get like 6-7x3 years but it's hard to hold management to a reasonable standard).

 

[krutovsdonut]

@MarkusNaslund19 since you requested @s

In regards to yesterday’s discussion:

are we really posting board user's tweets now as an appeal to authority?

 

[krutovsdonut]

also what bullshit about the "proven right" part. the rule is that hindsight is only permitted by "benning critics" if it verifies their hypothesis. examples of hindsight proving them dead wrong are rejected in favour of their original take being right at the time.

that happens all the time like, i don't know, yesterday, when i was discussing benning's trade record since 2017.

 

[bandwagonesque]

The rumoured deals of 8x8 for Hughes and 8x3 for Pettersson are literally the reverse of what should be done. Pettersson should get the 8x8 and Hughes should get the 8x3 (well, he should get like 6-7x3 years but it's hard to hold management to a reasonable standard).

General managers don’t unilaterally choose the length of the contracts their players sign.

 

[MS]

General managers don’t unilaterally choose the length of the contracts their players sign.

This is true, but it seems that Pettersson's lack of trust in management and lack of confidence in team direction is driving his shorter contract demand, which is indirectly still tied to the GM.

 

[Huggy]

Que new ed sheeran song

Every thread i read on here.

Is about beeeennnning de de due de de de

Every time i come to hf caaaanucks

Benning here and Benning there. every thread all dayyyyy de de de de.

Change the name to HfBennning dede dee dede

 

[MarkMM]

And this offers absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Opportunity to learn and recalibrate.

 

[Sneezy]

This is true, but it seems that Pettersson's lack of trust in management and lack of confidence in team direction is driving his shorter contract demand, which is indirectly still tied to the GM.

Regardless of how many times you say there is zero proof of any mistrust of management from EP.

There are many different reasons why contracts are short/long.

 

[Sneezy]

Que new ed sheeran song

Every thread i read on here.

Is about beeeennnning de de due de de de

Every time i come to hf caaaanucks

Benning here and Benning there. every thread all dayyyyy de de de de.

Change the name to HfBennning dede dee dede

We try to have rational discussions but it keeps getting dragged down the same path by a specific set of posters.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

General managers don’t unilaterally choose the length of the contracts their players sign.

Appreciate the standard snarky response. Is management forced to sign Hughes to a long term deal? Because that was the other aspect of my post that you seem to have ignored.

 

[MarkMM]

also what bullshit about the "proven right" part. the rule is that hindsight is only permitted by "benning critics" if it verifies their hypothesis. examples of hindsight proving them dead wrong are rejected in favour of their original take being right at the time.

that happens all the time like, i don't know, yesterday, when i was discussing benning's trade record since 2017.

Hindsight applies when predictions are made that specific actions will turn out badly, and then they do. I think the two trades that could be debated would be the Miller one (which I think in the end was a great trade for value, though most people who debated that one were more about whether it's a move we should be making now or focusing on building for the future), and the Toffoli trade, and there again most of the critics of the trade were against it largely because of whether we'd have room to keep him, less so the value of the trade, and that prediction turned out sadly true.

Other things like that we'd regret Myers is obviously true, that we'd regret Pearson I think is true but room for debate, and as much as people might want to "move on" from talking about Eriksson, Beagle and Roussel, that's not fair since those three signings were damned at the time, defended by Benning defenders, and now we're in a position of having to trade away assets and take on an anchor of a contract and still having trouble for long-term deals for our stars AND likely to lose one of Miller/Boeser/Horvat.

Toss in the idea that Holtby's contract was silly (and we bought him out, so I think that speaks a lot to how valuable that is), and calling out the "but hindsight" and "let's move on" is fair and IS relevant because it speaks to the credibility of these same defences of Benning and the legitimacy of whether or not Benning should be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

[4Twenty]

Can you guys take this to the management thread?