The Pettersson and Hughes Contract Thread

[MarkusNaslund19]

They didnt pay for a competent 1a/1b though. People said right when he was signed that this wouldnt end well. That's foresight not hindsight.

I don't take issue with people saying they thought Holtby was the wrong investment. I agree and acknowledge that lot's of people were unsure about him. I take issue with people saying we spent 4.5 million on a guy who was only going to play 1/3rd of the games at most. Just because that's the way it turned out doesn't mean it would have been wise to bank on it.

Further, we can't even say for sure whether or not it helped Demko to have a vet to talk to, or psychologically to know that there was another good pedigree NHL goaltender there.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

I understand that you are frustrated that you incorrectly labeled foresight as hindsight in an attempt to deflect, but at some point the deflecting has to stop no?

Hopefully the response to this is “true peen, i acknowledge that i was wrong about your opinion being himdsight bias”

LOL. Yeah, I don't know what hindsight is. I'm finished with you, have a good evening. Earnestly, I disagree with you. but I hope your night goes well.

 

[Peen]

LOL. Yeah, I don't know what hindsight is. I'm finished with you, have a good evening. Earnestly, I disagree with you. but I hope your night goes well.

At least you acknowledged it brother that's the first step for many of us

 

[Paradise Circus]

Because of your charming personality Paradise Circus of course.

lol

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

At least you acknowledged it brother that's the first step for many of us

Man, when you get old enough to understand facetiousness, the world will open up for you. I can't wait to watch you blossom.

 

[4Twenty]

These Holtby signing defenses in sept 2021 are f***ing hilarious.


Like even the Jim Benning Canucks left a back door for a reasonable buyout. What happened is entirely what was predicted and then signing Demko to the richest contract a goalie has ever signed with such a little resume should be slapping you in the face with it.

 

[MS]

What a load of nonsense, holy f***.

"Without the pandemic, salaries would have been higher and Toffoli would have signed for substantially more, and the cap-crunched team would still not have been able to afford him."

Conjecture, conjecture conjecture. Better treat it as fact and get angry and sanctimonious about it.

"Keeping good players who play every single night was exponentially more important than signing bad players who play 1/3 of the games.".

Just bad faith arguing. Did Holtby play well? No. But the idea that we knew that Demko would be capable of playing 2/3rds of a season without having a support valve is ridiculous. If you're honest with yourself, you'll acknowledge that if we had not brought in a veteran backup and Demko had faltered you would have been sprinting for your pitchfork.

"Good managers are able to adjust to situations on the fly and prioritize the right players to keep".

The austerity measures were implemented by ownership. You think Benning acquired Toffoli with no plan on keeping him, then Toffoli played really well and Benning didn't keep him because he was too stupid to recognize good play? If you're arguing against a caricaturized version of Benning, as many on these boards seem to, then you can't be taken seriously.

Jesus.

Yes, of course I thought Demko was capable of handling 2/3 starter duties, and said so multiple times immediately after the trade was made.

I understood that :

1) The success rate of top young backup goalies moving into the starter spot is extremely high. People were manufacturing a risk there that didn't actually exist.

2) Actual good players who play every night are far more important to your team than a backup goalie. And when you're in a cap crunch, you don't prioritize your backup goalie over core roster players.

3) Holtby was trending horribly and was one of the worst goalies in the NHL in 19-20 and unlikely to come anywhere near justifying that contract.

And was right on every count. None of this is hindsight. Meanwhile people who were wrong about absolutely everything are still trying to claim that their obviously wrong take was somehow correct.

It's absolutely f***ing mental. WE NEEDED TO PROTECT DEMKO ... by signing one of the worst goalies in the NHL to a huge contract, whose terrible performance would force the team to play Demko in virtually every game in the scenario the team was apparently trying to avoid, while not having the team's best defender to play in front of him? What a great argument. The stupidity makes my head hurt.

Austerity measures? We spent to the cap. We found $7 million to spend on Virtanen and Holtby. We could have sold high on Pearson after his fluke season. Benning had plenty of room to keep Toffoli (or Tanev, or even both). He botched up up completely. And again, not hindsight. From the second the Toffoli trade was made, *everyone* here who had the slightest understanding of the salary cap was saying that the team was in a position where they couldn't sign everyone. This was not some sort of shocking development that happened post-COVID.

And yes, of course Toffoli would have got more without the flat cap. Salaries were obviously depressed last offseason from previous years. There is no way Toffoli would have got a 4.5 AAV in a normal world.

 

[Luck 6]

3 year deal for EP. kid wants the f*** outta here quick. JB walking him in to free agency. Lol.

A 3 year deal for EP is likely the best case scenario for keeping him here his entire career.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Kevin Woodley liked Holtby..I’m sure Ian Clark did as well..Holtby did not have a good year..but they were not going to throw Demko in the deep end as an unproven starter.

Especially in a compressed schedule.

There were other, better options available than Holtby. Greiss, Talbot, and Khudobin to name a few.

 

[Peen]

Man, when you get old enough to understand facetiousness, the world will open up for you. I can't wait to watch you blossom.

I thought you were going.

You also didn't comprehend my facetiousness in response to yours which is just adding on to the funny here.

 

[Melvin]

In terms of encapsulating this board under Benning, that thread is so perfect. It's almost a work of art.

Seriously.

everyone should go read that thread from page 1 and evaluate which posters they should listen to.

 

[MS]

If Jim Benning had completed the Cam Neely trade, the usual suspects would have been endlessly chanting 'BUT WE HAAAAAAD TO TRADE FOR PEDERSON! Jim Benning was never going to go into a season with only Sundstrom and Gradin at C!'

It's just f***ing ridiculous. You guys have invented this bad-logic narrative that something HAD to happen when it didn't (see Washington last offseason) and when that bad logic is proven wrong, rather than admit it might have been wrong, it's like a broken machine jammed on WEHADTOWEHADTOWEHADTOWEHADTO.

No, we didn't have to.

 

[vancityluongo]

"we had austerity measures forced onto the team by ownership" and "if they didn't sign the most expensive backup on the market you would have lost your shit" in the same post is something haha

and without going back to that thread, i will admit i was pretty wrong on holtby (the player, not the contract). reasoning IIRC was that kevin woodley (who someone quoted a page or two back) was bullish that washington gave up awful quality shots, and that goaltending is a high pedigree position where previous track record actually matters. and that it is voodoo as a position, with no real ability to consistently project performance outside of HHOF'ers. a lot of people thought ryan miller was an egregiously bad signing - he turned out to be a just bad signing IMO, but also had off ice qualities that helped a bit. that's pretty much how i saw holtby playing out; clearly worse than demko, but a good cup winning vet that actually has some value in being a big part of the room as a backup goalie - ie. in a position where it makes sense to pay a slight premium for that stuff, as opposed to, third line center or top pairing defenseman. maybe he puts up a .908 or something after his sub .900 season, which is certainly not a $4.3M goalie, but a reasonable backup. and he is a good dude; that post-covid game against the leafs was baller. anyways i thought the biggest risk would be that green/benning view him as a starter and he'd start 30 of 56 games or something. wrong on that, cause he was too bad right from the get-go.

i was also wrong on the pedigree thing for holtby, but stand by it as a theory. carey price has been statistically bad for a while, but for some reason i have more faith in him than, say, jordan binnington, who was an utter one hit wonder and came out of nowhere. marc andre fleury looked like a sieve in pittsburgh and had his job stolen by matt murray lol and then just won the vezina like 4 years later.

anyways, it's ok to be wrong.

 

[alternate]

I can live with both those deals if true.

8@8 is high for Hughes for sure. It's a risk. But if an improved team structure can help his overall game, and he's a consistent 60+ point player, it will end up being a good deal. At worse, it will be a $3m overpayment for the last few years, but looking at dmen contracts signed this off-season, it could also be a $2-3m underpayment. One of those situations where the usual suspects will hate on Benning now for the deal, but also hate on Benning if he bridged Hughes and he went on to win a Norris before the deal expired.

EP I'd love to sign long term, but the smoke signals have been pretty clear that he wants to see where the team is at first. 3@8 is a fine compromise. No issues at all paying that to our best player. I've said all along that worrying he might bolt after his contract is a loser's mentality. Become a competitive team, and it looks like we will be this season, then those concerns are out the window.

If I got to make the contracts myself, I'd have switched them around for sure. But no way EP would sign a 8@8 deal. And while there are definitely question marks about QH all around game, he's as good as anyone at his position when it comes to transitioning the puck and production, and he's the kind of guy a future UFA will take a hair cut to play beside.

There will be the usual whining and gnashing of teeth from those that do nothing but whine and gnash teeth, but both those deals are palatable and put us in a good position when it comes to re-signing Bo and Boes.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Seriously.

everyone should go read that thread from page 1 and evaluate which posters they should listen to.

Jesus that was painful to read. So much arrogance amongst those saying how wrong posters were who didn’t like the deal. These people deserve our management group.

Link for anyone interested:

Confirmed with Link: - Canucks sign G Braden Holtby to 2-Year Deal ($4.3M AAV)

 

[AppleHoneySauce]

Jesus that was painful to read. So much arrogance amongst those saying how wrong posters were who didn’t like the deal. These people deserve our management group.

Link for anyone interested:

Confirmed with Link: - Canucks sign G Braden Holtby to 2-Year Deal ($4.3M AAV)

My favourite part is appealing to the main board having a positive opinion.

 

[MS]

"we had austerity measures forced onto the team by ownership" and "if they didn't sign the most expensive backup on the market you would have lost your shit" in the same post is something haha

and without going back to that thread, i will admit i was pretty wrong on holtby (the player, not the contract). reasoning IIRC was that kevin woodley (who someone quoted a page or two back) was bullish that washington gave up awful quality shots, and that goaltending is a high pedigree position where previous track record actually matters. and that it is voodoo as a position, with no real ability to consistently project performance outside of HHOF'ers. a lot of people thought ryan miller was an egregiously bad signing - he turned out to be a just bad signing IMO, but also had off ice qualities that helped a bit. that's pretty much how i saw holtby playing out; clearly worse than demko, but a good cup winning vet that actually has some value in being a big part of the room as a backup goalie - ie. in a position where it makes sense to pay a slight premium for that stuff, as opposed to, third line center or top pairing defenseman. maybe he puts up a .908 or something after his sub .900 season, which is certainly not a $4.3M goalie, but a reasonable backup. and he is a good dude; that post-covid game against the leafs was baller. anyways i thought the biggest risk would be that green/benning view him as a starter and he'd start 30 of 56 games or something. wrong on that, cause he was too bad right from the get-go.

i was also wrong on the pedigree thing for holtby, but stand by it as a theory. carey price has been statistically bad for a while, but for some reason i have more faith in him than, say, jordan binnington, who was an utter one hit wonder and came out of nowhere. marc andre fleury looked like a sieve in pittsburgh and had his job stolen by matt murray lol and then just won the vezina like 4 years later.

anyways, it's ok to be wrong.

My thing is always 'most likely outcomes'. You make moves based on what is most likely to occur, rather than what you hope might occur or a small-chance best-case scenario that might occur. If you bank on probabilities, you'll get most things right. If you chase rainbows, you'll get most things wrong.

When you're looking at 30+ players who have multiple years of declining play, the most likely outcome is *never* that the player has a massive bounce-back to being a top player. It *might* happen but is far more unlikely than the alternative (player flatlines or continues to get worse) and you should never be investing significant assets or cap space in an unlikely outcome.

The only time you should be making moves that have unlikely outcomes is when there's no risk attached to it - ie. signing a guy for league minimum or trading a late round pick.

Jim Benning *constantly* chases rainbows and makes moves that require an outlier result to be a success.

 

[AppleHoneySauce]

Seeing someone mention that fleury was 50% retained and a first hurts my soul. Forgot about that. That may be more hindsight though.

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

You assume I sit here with baited breath waiting to see if someone vaguebooks me? Cool.

Are you trying to catch a fish with your mouth?

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

My thing is always 'most likely outcomes'. You make moves based on what is most likely to occur, rather than what you hope might occur or a small-chance best-case scenario that might occur. If you bank on probabilities, you'll get most things right. If you chase rainbows, you'll get most things wrong.

When you're looking at 30+ players who have multiple years of declining play, the most likely outcome is *never* that the player has a massive bounce-back to being a top player. It *might* happen but is far more unlikely than the alternative (player flatlines or continues to get worse) and you should never be investing significant assets or cap space in an unlikely outcome.

The only time you should be making moves that have unlikely outcomes is when there's no risk attached to it - ie. signing a guy for league minimum or trading a late round pick.

Jim Benning *constantly* chases rainbows and makes moves that require an outlier result to be a success.

This is the logic behind me not wanting Tanev resigned. Well that and I wanted Toffoli back more. Tanev looked to be declining his last few years here, but it appears it was more Green. He went right back to being old Tanev.

I Completely agree with you still. I would also add players that have been regressing for multiple years but have a career year to the be cautious list.

 

[Peter10]

The pandemic is also why we did not re-sign him.

They ran out of time.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

It will be interesting to see next season...(seeing as we have a full 82 games ) to see if Toffoli has a season like last season..and how Tanev and Markstrom hold up in Calgary..?

 

[mathonwy]

Jesus that was painful to read. So much arrogance amongst those saying how wrong posters were who didn’t like the deal. These people deserve our management group.

Link for anyone interested:

Confirmed with Link: - Canucks sign G Braden Holtby to 2-Year Deal ($4.3M AAV)

Serves me right for waiting and seeing

I am shame

 

[Diamonddog01]

Signing Holtby and Virtanen instead of signing Toffoli and Tanev was just a bizarre and inept prioritization of the wrong players and positions.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Jesus.

Yes, of course I thought Demko was capable of handling 2/3 starter duties, and said so multiple times immediately after the trade was made.

I understood that :

1) The success rate of top young backup goalies moving into the starter spot is extremely high. People were manufacturing a risk there that didn't actually exist.

2) Actual good players who play every night are far more important to your team than a backup goalie. And when you're in a cap crunch, you don't prioritize your backup goalie over core roster players.

3) Holtby was trending horribly and was one of the worst goalies in the NHL in 19-20 and unlikely to come anywhere near justifying that contract.

And was right on every count. None of this is hindsight. Meanwhile people who were wrong about absolutely everything are still trying to claim that their obviously wrong take was somehow correct.

It's absolutely f***ing mental. WE NEEDED TO PROTECT DEMKO ... by signing one of the worst goalies in the NHL to a huge contract, whose terrible performance would force the team to play Demko in virtually every game in the scenario the team was apparently trying to avoid, while not having the team's best defender to play in front of him? What a great argument. The stupidity makes my head hurt.

Austerity measures? We spent to the cap. We found $7 million to spend on Virtanen and Holtby. We could have sold high on Pearson after his fluke season. Benning had plenty of room to keep Toffoli (or Tanev, or even both). He botched up up completely. And again, not hindsight. From the second the Toffoli trade was made, *everyone* here who had the slightest understanding of the salary cap was saying that the team was in a position where they couldn't sign everyone. This was not some sort of shocking development that happened post-COVID.

And yes, of course Toffoli would have got more without the flat cap. Salaries were obviously depressed last offseason from previous years. There is no way Toffoli would have got a 4.5 AAV in a normal world.

As an example, the Flyers just torpedoed a season by not properly insulating Carter Hart. The Penguins bowed out of the playoffs because Jarry was appalling.

I know Demko had a wonderful 3 or 4 games in the bubble, but prior to Covid when Markstrom got hurt Demko really struggled and gave away some games.

Fluke season? I know Pearson got a lot of empty net points, but he's worth a lot more than points. Also, he has two other years within 5 points of his 'fluke season'. Admittedly in 12 or so less games, but the point stands.

And yes, austerity. They could have, and would have, bought out Sutter and possibly Virtanen. The austerity measures kneecapped our front office. This isn't opinion, this is fact. I won't disagree that Holtby wasn't a very good bet, but pretending that insulating a young and inexperienced goaltender is a bad move shows that either you don't know how to build a team, or that you would rather be 'right' (in hindsight) than correct.