Player Discussion Would you be comfortable with a Elias Pettersson trade? (Poll)

[EpochLink]

This thread aged poorly

 

[Bgav]

Good old luc

 

[tyhee]

It’s not true that an overpayment will improve the team. You could get a boatload if picks for him as an overpayment. But quantity usually isn’t better than quality— those picks may take 2-3 years from draft to be impactful, setting the team back, and that’s banking our scouting team to hit each pick. The chances of these players being as impactful as Pettersson is low.

Your example suggests that the return has to set the team back, which to me makes no sense at all and would mean the return is not a clear overpayment.

I voted today that it depends on the pieces coming back, by the way. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which there can't possibly be a return for a player that would improve the team. I would vote the same way if making the same choice for the Oilers about McDavid or a mid-1980's Gretzky, Leafs about Matthews, Bruins about Orr or Bourque in their primes or pretty much anyone else.

Obviously my approach means I don't think it makes sense to ever say a player shouldn't be traded regardless of the return, though I'd make an exception for a player who has reached the stage where the team wishes to keep him for sentimental reasons to finish his career with the club.

 

[Aqualung]

Your example suggests that the return has to set the team back, which to me makes no sense at all and would mean the return is not a clear overpayment.

I voted today that it depends on the pieces coming back, by the way. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which there can't possibly be a return for a player that would improve the team. I would vote the same way if making the same choice for the Oilers about McDavid or a mid-1980's Gretzky, Leafs about Matthews, Bruins about Orr or Bourque in their primes or pretty much anyone else.

Obviously my approach means I don't think it makes sense to ever say a player shouldn't be traded regardless of the return, though I'd make an exception for a player who has reached the stage where the team wishes to keep him for sentimental reasons to finish his career with the club.

Not sure you understood what I wrote. I said an overpayment doesn’t necessarily make the team better, not that it has to be that way. An overpayment by normal trade expectations doesn’t mean it will always work out which is the point.

 

[Tomatoes11]

Yeah trade a 23 year old top line player for 2 maybes who may be half as good as Pettersson and a bust. Absolutely genius

No, Wright most likely will be better than EP if his trajectory doesn’t get derailed. Lol tardy boy. He did get derailed a bit probably by Covid but he was ahead of mcmuffin at one point. Lol

Besides, I don’t even think Montreal takes it to be honest.

Whoever wins bedard and mitchkov definitely won’t take it but I don’t even think the Wright winner takes it. Lol

 

[Vakarte]

I'm sure this aged well

 

[y2kcanucks]

I'm sure this aged well

I haven't read through the responses, but if you look at the voting options it's a bit of a cop-out. I voted yes, for a clear overpayment. Why? Because if the Canucks are being offered McDavid, or Makar for Pettersson then the obvious answer is you take that trade 10 times out of 10.

The other Yes option were "if the pieces were right." Again, if the pieces are right for any player then it makes sense to trade them. What does that even mean?

 

[Nucker101]

I'm sure this aged well

I mean, are any of the poll options even a "wrong" choice? If there was another option for "yes, for the best available offer before next season" or something then you could ridicule those voters since that's implying that you're motivated to trade him, even if the value isn't great and/or the pieces returned don't fit the team long-term.

But in my opinion, the straight up "no" answer is the worst answer to give on this poll, I'd trade anyone if they return makes my team better according to my team's evaluation method.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I mean, are any of the poll options even a "wrong" choice? If there was another option for "yes, for the best available offer before next season" or something then you could ridicule those voters since that's implying that you're motivated to trade him, even if the value isn't great and/or the pieces returned don't fit the team long-term.

But in my opinion, the straight up "no" answer is the worst answer to give on this poll, I'd trade anyone if they return makes my team better according to my team's evaluation method.

The reason the poll existed was because he was underachieving..The players value obviously drops in this case…as would the returns in a transaction.

I guess for some,there was considerable doubt as to whether he would return to his previous form

The correct answer was no …Patience was required.

 

[Nucker101]

The reason the poll existed was because he was underachieving..The players value obviously drops in this case…as would the returns in a transaction.

I guess for some,there was considerable doubt as to whether he would return to his previous form

The correct answer was no …Patience was required.

Yeah, but the yes options all implied a subjective “good return” so I’m not sure if anyone can really be dunked on in this case.

If they traded him for Barzal would people be talking about the Canucks getting ripped off? No.

 

[crowfish]

The type of person who wanted to trade Pettersson at his all-time low value is the same person who bought BTC at 65k and now won't touch it at 20k

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Yeah, but the yes options all implied a subjective “good return” so I’m not sure if anyone can really be dunked on in this case.

If they traded him for Barzal would people be talking about the Canucks getting ripped off? No.

You’re not getting a Barzal or any good return on a player that’s been underachieving for a second straight season.

You’re selling low…and at the wrong end of the bargaining table..

Simple as that.

 

[racerjoe]

The reason the poll existed was because he was underachieving..The players value obviously drops in this case…as would the returns in a transaction.

I guess for some,there was considerable doubt as to whether he would return to his previous form

The correct answer was no …Patience was required.

No the correct answer for any player period is Yes for the right price. I would trade McDavid if I was getting the right things back.

 

[Hammer79]

No the correct answer for any player period is Yes for the right price. I would trade McDavid if I was getting the right things back.

What assets exist in the league right now that would be worth trading Conner? We haven't seen a player make an impact like him since Crosby.

I get that you are saying that no one is untouchable, but realistically, any trade that the Oilers make involving McDavid is going to mean losing the best player in the trade. You could have 1st overall for 5 straight years and not have a player like him become available. If you are giving up the best player in a trade, generally you are losing it unless your futures pan out.... and they won't pan out to be another Conner.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

No the correct answer for any player period is Yes for the right price. I would trade McDavid if I was getting the right things back.

That makes any conversation pointless, since its the literal conclusion to and question that is brought up on hfboards.

What assets exist in the league right now that would be worth trading Conner? We haven't seen a player make an impact like him since Crosby.

I get that you are saying that no one is untouchable, but realistically, any trade that the Oilers make involving McDavid is going to mean losing the best player in the trade. You could have 1st overall for 5 straight years and not have a player like him become available. If you are giving up the best player in a trade, generally you are losing it unless your futures pan out.... and they won't pan out to be another Conner.

10 1sts, 20, 30, 40, 50, the statement you replied to is one that implies whatever philosophical extreme it takes

 

[Nucker101]

You’re not getting a Barzal or any good return on a player that’s been underachieving for a second straight season.

You’re selling low…and at the wrong end of the bargaining table..

Simple as that.

As fans we can only speculate on offers. And you’re making my point for me, the “yes” answers all imply a subjective good return. If the Isles offered me Barzal, I would have had to consider. If they offered me Beauvillier and a 2023 1st, I hang up. So even if I voted “yes” in the poll, no one can dunk on me a few months later due to how the poll choices are worded. None of them imply trading him for a bad return.

If the OP wanted to make a “got ‘em!” type of poll, they would’ve included a “yes trade him for the best offer available before next season” poll choice, meaning selling EP for a bad return was possible.

 

[racerjoe]

What assets exist in the league right now that would be worth trading Conner? We haven't seen a player make an impact like him since Crosby.

I get that you are saying that no one is untouchable, but realistically, any trade that the Oilers make involving McDavid is going to mean losing the best player in the trade. You could have 1st overall for 5 straight years and not have a player like him become available. If you are giving up the best player in a trade, generally you are losing it unless your futures pan out.... and they won't pan out to be another Conner.

Honestly I would think damn hard about it for Makar, and for Makar plus would in an instant.

It’s the old adage Gretz was traded.

That makes any conversation pointless, since its the literal conclusion to and question that is brought up on hfboards.

It’s a comment on the poor choices of the poll, and the terrible answer with the answers on the poll being No.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

Honestly I would think damn hard about it for Makar, and for Makar plus would in an instant.

It’s the old adage Gretz was traded.



It’s a comment on the poor choices of the poll, and the terrible answer with the answers on the poll being No.

Yea, the poll answers should have been different so people could look at the poll question the same.

When the different answers mean different things to different people, the what the question implies is also different to different people.

I would have said no because I think EP is going to become better then the player we would realistically be offered, but I take the question that way because if I assume it means regardless of return then I think its too obvious an answer…

Also thats why I didn’t answer the question, because its not very good, as you say.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

As fans we can only speculate on offers. And you’re making my point for me, the “yes” answers all imply a subjective good return. If the Isles offered me Barzal, I would have had to consider. If they offered me Beauvillier and a 2023 1st, I hang up. So even if I voted “yes” in the poll, no one can dunk on me a few months later due to how the poll choices are worded. None of them imply trading him for a bad return.

If the OP wanted to make a “got ‘em!” type of poll, they would’ve included a “yes trade him for the best offer available before next season” poll choice, meaning selling EP for a bad return was possible.

A struggling player who was MIA on the ice for the beat part of 2 years isnt getting Barzal..but we already know that.

Anyway...someone made a point that the OP made a flawed poll...why would an opposing GM give you an 'overpayment' on a player that looked for the best part of two seasons like he'd 'lost it'...?

It just wouldn't happen.

 

[Nucker101]

A struggling player who was MIA on the ice for the beat part of 2 years isnt getting Barzal..but we already know that.

Anyway...someone made a point that the OP made a flawed poll...why would an opposing GM give you an 'overpayment' on a player that looked for the best part of two seasons like he'd 'lost it'...?

It just wouldn't happen.

Yeah the poll was flawed

 

[Hammer79]

Honestly I would think damn hard about it for Makar, and for Makar plus would in an instant.

It’s the old adage Gretz was traded.



It’s a comment on the poor choices of the poll, and the terrible answer with the answers on the poll being No.

Gretzky was traded because Peter Pocklington was a crook. Also, I'd want to see how Makar performs when he's not on the best team in the league. Conner dragged a god-awful Oilers team to the conference finals, does Makar do that? I doubt it.

 

[Tomatoes11]

A struggling player who was MIA on the ice for the beat part of 2 years isnt getting Barzal..but we already know that.

Anyway...someone made a point that the OP made a flawed poll...why would an opposing GM give you an 'overpayment' on a player that looked for the best part of two seasons like he'd 'lost it'...?

It just wouldn't happen.

This is like the Boeser thing all over again. I don’t think any decent gm worth their salt would ignore a player that had one bad season, especially if they wanted to draft him or scouted them a lot before. A lot of dim Jim’s and Pastorz everywhere that might pay a ransom for either. You just have to make sure you play the cards right for the huge return. Like The Sakic Duchene trade.

In Pastorz case, he would never trade anyone on the Canucks because he thinks this team can compete as is. lol

 

[LaVal]

The poll aged perfectly fine. I chose "for the right pieces" then and would still do that today. There isn't a player on the roster I wouldn't trade for the right pieces, including Hughes and Demko.

People are acting like those pieces have changed between then and now. They haven't. Is there a team willing to offer the right pieces for Pettersson? No, otherwise he already would have been traded. Nobody on your roster should be untouchable, just very difficult to acquire.

There's no options about trading him for a lateral move, trading him for futures, or dumping him for cap savings. Almost all the potential answers in this poll are very safe. The only hot take answer in this poll is not trading him even for a clear overpayment. I'm assuming those people are banking on him reaching a completely different level that will far exceed his current value. And that's a legitimate opinion as well.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

delete.

 

[strattonius]

There was a point last year when I legitimately thought we over-rated Pettersson because of his first 30 games in his rookie season - the flash, the alien, the dominance. That spark died a bit last year. Then we got news his wrist was bunged up and he started making those big brain plays only few players are capable of making. Now I'm back to a point where I think 90 pts is a very realistic point total for Petey. He has it all and barring he doesn't get injured I don't see how this player won't put it together. Especially with the increased scoring rate in the NHL and the direction and culture change our organization is undergoing.

Trading Pettersson would be a colossal mistake.