The Pettersson and Hughes Contract Thread

[BrentSopelsHair]

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."

At the end of the day, the only way to really get ahead in a capped system is to get more value from players than their cap hit. The best way to do that is to lock up your best players long term when you can, and in this case **in a perfect world where our cap sheet is not effed** we should be doing everything in our power to lock up both long-term. Yes, this will cost more in the early years than a bridge, but the whole goal of that is that you are buying future value as the player develops and begins to outperform their contract. So yeah the Canucks should absolutely be trying to give these guys long deals, but I expect we will not be able to get this done with EP

 

[Luck 6]

At the end of the day, the only way to really get ahead in a capped system is to get more value from players than their cap hit. The best way to do that is to lock up your best players long term when you can, and in this case **in a perfect world where our cap sheet is not effed** we should be doing everything in our power to lock up both long-term. Yes, this will cost more in the early years than a bridge, but the whole goal of that is that you are buying future value as the player develops and begins to outperform their contract. So yeah the Canucks should absolutely be trying to give these guys long deals, but I expect we will not be able to get this done with EP

I certainly get that, a long term contract for each player would normally be the way to go. Look at Draisaitl as an example, he'd be getting WAY more right now. With that being said, there are three arguments that oppose this that need to be considered:

1) Whether some fans believe it or not, we have the potentially of opening up a bit of a "mini window" for cup contention in the next three years if a few things go our way. We'd need our players to get locked into decent bridge contracts, for our players to continue to develop, for additions like OEL to perform, etc. After 3 years you could be looking at a regression from Horvat and Miller (if they're still here), so our chance to win with those guys is now, so getting Hughes / Pettersson locked up for a lower rate would be beneficial.

2) If we sign these guys to a bridge deal of 3 years they'll be 24/25 when their contracts expire. At that point we can go 8 years (or less) and lock these guys up to age 32/33. This can sometime be more beneficial in the long run as opposed to allowing them to hit UFA status at age 30 right at the end of their prime, that can be dangerous.

3) We're in a flat cap era right now, and we likely will be for another couple of years. Hence, you could make a case that it may not cost us THAT much more to sign them after a bridge then it would right now, especially if JP Barry is asking for the moon.

 

[Ninjadude]

Was thinking in my head....Wouldnt it be ironic that they dont sign before the start of the year and it causes the Nucks to go on a losing streak. Thus costing Benning his job and missing the playoffs. With all the changes they did this year, it was all for naught.

 

[Ninjadude]

Maybe i should just keep these thoughts in my head and not write them down.

But seriously, i dont think with the recent contracts handed out (by Benning and around the league), its hard for me to see QH or EP signing for a combined 15 million. Its going to be above that.

 

[oceanchild]

We have walked ourselves into a tough situation and doubled down with the trade for OEL. We should be signing both to long term contracts with a higher value now, but more manageable in the long term. We have really set ourselves up by also handing over the 9th overall when elc contracts are what allow teams to win. This tire fire burns relentlessly.

 

[F A N]

We have walked ourselves into a tough situation and doubled down with the trade for OEL. We should be signing both to long term contracts with a higher value now, but more manageable in the long term. We have really set ourselves up by also handing over the 9th overall when elc contracts are what allow teams to win. This tire fire burns relentlessly.

Well we did walk ourselves into a tough situation but that was prior to the OEL trade. Prior to the OEL trade, it wasn't even in the realm of possibility to sign both players long term. Now it's at least in the realm of possibility.

This whole notion that ELC contracts are what allow teams to win is so outdated.

 

[F A N]

At the end of the day, the only way to really get ahead in a capped system is to get more value from players than their cap hit. The best way to do that is to lock up your best players long term when you can, and in this case **in a perfect world where our cap sheet is not effed** we should be doing everything in our power to lock up both long-term. Yes, this will cost more in the early years than a bridge, but the whole goal of that is that you are buying future value as the player develops and begins to outperform their contract. So yeah the Canucks should absolutely be trying to give these guys long deals, but I expect we will not be able to get this done with EP

It's definitely a bit of a catch 22. Assuming that the star player doesn't decline, you definitely get more value in the later years by locking up the player long term. But if you do lock up the player long term in his 2nd contract, what does inevitably happen is that you sign the player to a term that takes them to 36-38 in the next contract for a higher AAV or lose them with years still left in their prime. With a bridge then long term deal, that third/long term contract ends when that player is in his early 30s.

 

[Hit the post]

We have walked ourselves into a tough situation and doubled down with the trade for OEL. We should be signing both to long term contracts with a higher value now, but more manageable in the long term. We have really set ourselves up by also handing over the 9th overall when elc contracts are what allow teams to win. This tire fire burns relentlessly.

The 2nd year in a row we didn't have a 1st round pick selection. Rebuilding team!

 

[Samzilla]

The 2nd year in a row we didn't have a 1st round pick selection. Rebuilding team!

We're both rebuilding and our contention window is open. That's how Benning rolls.

 

[F A N]

We're both rebuilding and our contention window is open. That's how Benning rolls.

That's pretty good if true.

 

[Bertuzzipunch]

Were rebuilding?

 

[RandV]

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.

Get Hughes signed to that long term deal first. Then while working on a lower cap hit short term deal with Pettersson, watch as he signs an offer sheet for a big money long term deal we don't have the cap room for.

 

[oceanchild]

Well we did walk ourselves into a tough situation but that was prior to the OEL trade. Prior to the OEL trade, it wasn't even in the realm of possibility to sign both players long term. Now it's at least in the realm of possibility.

This whole notion that ELC contracts are what allow teams to win is so outdated.

I disagree with your assessment, we could have bridged and perhaps traded Miller to get an additional first. What we did was kick our cap problems down the road and got little relief in the intern. Yes I realize that dollar of dollar on the trade may seem like we got some additional cap space, but all subsequent moves count as they wouldn’t have happened. We don’t have a second or third next year and have not had a first for two years. This is going to blow up in our face.

mad for your second point, I totally disagree. While is doesn’t mean you can’t win without solid ELCs it is an important factor frequently.

 

[Blue and Green]

We have enough to go 8 years x 8.75mil on Pettersson and 8 years x 7.75mil on Hughes.

I can't see Pettersson agreeing to $8.75M on an eight-year term.

 

[Melvin]

The velocity of RFA's getting signed has really picked up the last couple days. I would start to feel a bit worried if we aren't hearing about any movement next week.

 

[rypper]

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.

Saying that we have the funds to go long term and then giving numbers that wouldn't get it done doesn't make it true. Those numbers get Hughes done long but not enough for Pettersson in my opinion.

I would 100% go long with Pettersson. I feel like Pettersson is on the verge of truly breaking out. Get him locked up now for term at a reasonable rate, with him just coming off of a down year. I don't think your number is large enough to get him signed though. Sign him for 8 years now at 7 figures, rather than waiting 2-3 years to go 8 for (potentially) 8 figures.

 

[Samzilla]

That's pretty good if true.

yes, Benning has cracked the code to building an evergreen contender.

 

[DS7]

Maybe i should just keep these thoughts in my head and not write them down.

But seriously, i dont think with the recent contracts handed out (by Benning and around the league), its hard for me to see QH or EP signing for a combined 15 million. Its going to be above that.

I'll give Benning some credit, when it comes to his RFA deals, he's been on point. What he pays for veterans he can at least go back to Hughes and Petey and say that it was by a different standard. I don't expect to see him cave like Dubas did with Marner. Although there's literally no room to cave to those kinds of deals anyways.

 

[Melvin]

I'll give Benning some credit, when it comes to his RFA deals, he's been on point. What he pays for veterans he can at least go back to Hughes and Petey and say that it was by a different standard. I don't expect to see him cave like Dubas did with Marner. Although there's literally no room to cave to those kinds of deals anyways.

He really hasn't been. Most of the RFA signings have been overpays that are harder to see by the nature of them being RFA signings (the GM equivalent of a pop fly.)

Ben Hutton is probably his most notable blunder of a "big" RFA overpay based on contemporary comparables that completely bit them in the ass later down the road. EDIT: Actually the Sven Baertschi signing is an ever more notable one where they had to bury the contract in the minors for two years. The Dickinson contract is also bad. There's also Sbisa, of course, and re-signing of other terrible players like Pouliot and Granlund. Also the most recent one to Virtanen.

his RFA signings have been quite bad but it's not as obvious when you screw up an RFA signing most of the time the way it is with UFA signings.

 

[F A N]

I disagree with your assessment, we could have bridged

But that would contradict your ideas of what you think the team should be doing:

We should be signing both to long term contracts with a higher value now.

................................................................................................

mad for your second point, I totally disagree. While is doesn’t mean you can’t win without solid ELCs it is an important factor frequently.

Why are you mad? Which Cup winning team in the past 5 years had one of their top 2 players still on their ELC? Top 3? Top 4?

 

[rypper]

Baertschi's contract was pretty ugly as well.

 

[Melvin]

Baertschi's contract was pretty ugly as well.

yeah I keep having to edit my post as I keep remembering others. His, it’s almost unfathomable how many rheee are.

 

[DS7]

He really hasn't been. Most of the RFA signings have been overpays that are harder to see by the nature of them being RFA signings (the GM equivalent of a pop fly.)

Ben Hutton is probably his most notable blunder of a "big" RFA overpay based on contemporary comparables that completely bit them in the ass later down the road. EDIT: Actually the Sven Baertschi signing is an ever more notable one where they had to bury the contract in the minors for two years. The Dickinson contract is also bad. There's also Sbisa, of course, and re-signing of other terrible players like Pouliot and Granlund. Also the most recent one to Virtanen.

his RFA signings have been quite bad but it's not as obvious when you screw up an RFA signing most of the time the way it is with UFA signings.

When I point to his RFA signings, I mainly point to Horvat and Boeser as my go to. He secured a good chunk of the core at fair or below market value and these two have the biggest positive impacts on the team compared to his UFA signings. Something about that letter flipping makes Benning lose all his marbles.

Pouliot's cap hit was negligible and Granlund's was only a 1 year deal right?

Dickinson has yet to set foot on the ice for this team, but for a defensively responsible top 9 player, being paid sub $3 mil, he would have to suck pretty hard to make it not at least fair value. I have more faith in him working out than Pearson.

And yes, granted, give you Baerschi and Virtanen, what a disaster.

 

[Melvin]

When I point to his RFA signings, I mainly point to Horvat and Boeser as my go to. He secured a good chunk of the core at fair or below market value and these two have the biggest positive impacts on the team compared to his UFA signings. Something about that letter flipping makes Benning lose all his marbles.

Pouliot's cap hit was negligible and Granlund's was only a 1 year deal right?

Dickinson has yet to set foot on the ice for this team, but for a defensively responsible top 9 player, being paid sub $3 mil, he would have to suck pretty hard to make it not at least fair value. I have more faith in him working out than Pearson.

And yes, granted, give you Baerschi and Virtanen, what a disaster.

again if you look at comparables at the time of the signing they are not really good. They just seem good because Rfa signings always seem good. Dickinson is a 2M player overpaid by 30% or something. At that level it doesn’t seem like a big deal but it’s nothing to write home about. Horvat was pretty much in the middle of his comparables. Not bad but nothing special. Boeser was slightly on the high side. He has never gotten anyone below market value.

would also add that he probably screwed up giving a 1 year deal to Tanev instead of locking him up to term.

 

[MarkMM]

again if you look at comparables at the time of the signing they are not really good. They just seem good because Rfa signings always seem good. Dickinson is a 2M player overpaid by 30% or something. At that level it doesn’t seem like a big deal but it’s nothing to write home about. Horvat was pretty much in the middle of his comparables. Not bad but nothing special. Boeser was slightly on the high side. He has never gotten anyone below market value.

would also add that he probably screwed up giving a 1 year deal to Tanev instead of locking him up to term.

The other thing that sours a bit on Boeser is the structure which locks in a pretty steep qualifying offer. Even if he ends up being worth it, it was still a notable concession that reduces any degree of "win" it was.