The Pettersson and Hughes Contract Thread
- Thread starter Mr. Canucklehead
- Start date
- Status
You can argue that he took a team-friendly deal and less than his value but there is no logical way to call a $2.525 million pay raise a pay cut.
[MacKinnon, with performance bonuses, made $3.775 million on his elc and then went to making $6.3 million.]
Last edited:
You guys aren't arguing about semantics. Pay cut means just that - a cut in pay. A team friendly deal suggests the player could have gotten more but signed for less money.
It is hard to conclude that McKinnon signed a team friendly deal though given that he was an RFA who signed a long term contract. He might have preferred the security and chose to sign that deal. Certainly he thought it was a lot of money.
Should EP make more or less than Miro Heiskanen (Dallas, defense, 9.45)?
PS. Don't answer "more or less" now...
PS. Don't answer "more or less" now...
rypper
21-12-05 it's finally over.
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,560
- 20,614
Heiskanen makes 8.45m. I think Pettersson gets more on a long term deal. Less on a bridge.
Canucker
Go Hawks!
Heiskanen's cap hit is $8.45m/yr. If we could get Petey tied up for 8 years at a similar figure I'd be fine with that...different positions but have about the same value to their respective teams.
Who would’ve taken our cap space then? We didn’t have much available before the trade to improve.
Simple points:
1. Pettersson believes he is or will become one of the top players in the league. Judging from his past comments and general disposition, that is his belief and motivation.
2. If he is or will become one of the top players in the league, he has every right and will want to get paid as such. He will want Mitch Marner, Patrick Kane range.
3. He is not there yet. There is chance he won't get there. What is the level of that risk? Hard to say. But with one season where he is among those players in terms of production (1.2 P/GP), he will have shown he is there.
4. The club and Pettersson will need to factor in 1, 2, and 3
The smartest thing for the club and Pettersson is to do a two year bridge at around $7M. The only caveat is that Horvat and Miller are up after two years. This may make a 3 year bridge better. But there are disadvantages to that for both the club and the player.
1. Pettersson believes he is or will become one of the top players in the league. Judging from his past comments and general disposition, that is his belief and motivation.
2. If he is or will become one of the top players in the league, he has every right and will want to get paid as such. He will want Mitch Marner, Patrick Kane range.
3. He is not there yet. There is chance he won't get there. What is the level of that risk? Hard to say. But with one season where he is among those players in terms of production (1.2 P/GP), he will have shown he is there.
4. The club and Pettersson will need to factor in 1, 2, and 3
The smartest thing for the club and Pettersson is to do a two year bridge at around $7M. The only caveat is that Horvat and Miller are up after two years. This may make a 3 year bridge better. But there are disadvantages to that for both the club and the player.
VanillaCoke
Registered User
- Oct 30, 2013
- 25,474
- 11,938
rypper
21-12-05 it's finally over.
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,560
- 20,614
I wish they hadn't blown their wad in free agency so they could have more flexibility in getting Hughes and Pettersson locked up.
They absolutely do not want to have to Pettersson, Miller, and Horvat up in the same off season.
Whether or not he'd be agreeable to it now is another story, but they should go long with Pettersson. If course if they do that now they are in tight for Hughes, regardless of term.
They absolutely do not want to have to Pettersson, Miller, and Horvat up in the same off season.
Whether or not he'd be agreeable to it now is another story, but they should go long with Pettersson. If course if they do that now they are in tight for Hughes, regardless of term.
Yeah but he will have JUST turned 33, which you know, is like almost 32 still
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
Bieksa was 33 years old when he last was a Canuck (and he was awful). And Hamhuis was 32 years old when Benning kicked him to the curb (didn't even bother trading him for anything).
BC-bound Viktor Persson is set to make his WHL debut: CanucksArmy Prospect Rankings #13
OOPS! Sorry wrong thread!
OOPS! Sorry wrong thread!
Last edited:
Hamhuis was 33 and turning 34 the year he left the Canucks. Bieksa was the same except he turned 34 in June in the year he left the Canucks.
Don't know. Hockeydb has him at 6'1" and Elite Prospects at 6'2". Both have him at 192 lbs.
IMac speculating on Sportsnet that the Canucks enough cap room to sign either Pettersson or Hughes to a long-term contract, but not both. So one guy will have to settle for a bridge deal.
I suppose the positive, is that both guys are represented by the same agent, who knows all their is to know about the Canucks cap situation.
So assuming only one long-term contract, who would you sign?
Speculation is that it'll be Hughes on the long term deal. But then again, he may want a bridge deal to retain the option of playing with his brothers in Jersey some day....but who knows?
But I suppose the 'positive' in all this is that going into the off-season, the best they could have done was a bridge deal for both. Now they've cleared enough space to tie up one player for the long term.
I suppose the positive, is that both guys are represented by the same agent, who knows all their is to know about the Canucks cap situation.
So assuming only one long-term contract, who would you sign?
Speculation is that it'll be Hughes on the long term deal. But then again, he may want a bridge deal to retain the option of playing with his brothers in Jersey some day....but who knows?
But I suppose the 'positive' in all this is that going into the off-season, the best they could have done was a bridge deal for both. Now they've cleared enough space to tie up one player for the long term.
Sneezy
Registered User
- Oct 25, 2019
- 533
- 340
I would think the Centre seems to always the top priority so him first. QH still has to show a lot more on his defensive side IMO.
RobertKron
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2007
- 15,536
- 8,704
rypper
21-12-05 it's finally over.
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,560
- 20,614
The fact that the team can't afford to go long with both their superstar players is completely f***ing stupid. Regardless if the team or player wanted to, the fact that they don't even have the option to, is downright embarrassing.
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
This is the management team that can trade Eriksson, Beagle and Roussel all in one go and take on salary.
Do you want to go long term with these guys? Or would you prefer a bridge? From my perspective I would rather go with a 3 year bridge, then have the option to sign them for 6-8 years afterwards. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be opposed to long term, but I think that provides us with the best combination of cost control and security.
Now, to say we don't have the funds to go long term is incorrect, we absolutely do. We have enough to go 8 years x 8.75mil on Pettersson and 8 years x 7.75mil on Hughes. I'm not sure I would want to invest any more than that long term on these two players even if we had it.
Further to that, having less cap space can play to the advantage of the team in negotiations especially if we are looking to steer discussions towards a bridge deal. Had we not pulled off that sweeping trade that jettisoned Eriksson, Beagle, and Roussel we would have had about 13mil in cap space to sign BOTH players (assuming Schmidt was retained, or a similar value was spent on a defenseman). Do you think they simply would have not signed with us? I seem to recall an article where JP Barry basically said "Canucks don't have enough cap space to go long term, we will need to bridge."
- Status
