Rantenen won’t sign here. Why would he? Never going to win a cup here. Bottom line.
Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Countdown to play Resuming
- Thread starter Mr. Canucklehead
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Nucker101
Foundational Poster
- Apr 2, 2013
- 22,540
- 19,194
I think our media is really obsessed with trade/contract rumours and speculation which can be annoying for players but yeah I don’t think they’re that tough on player’s for their performance
Bobby9
Registered User
- Feb 10, 2019
- 3,232
- 4,226
ephmrl
5th overall.
Some of these players would melt if they had to answer the awful questions that Mark Spector asks McDavid and Draisaitl.
Just A Bit Outside
Playoffs??!
- Mar 6, 2010
- 19,375
- 20,409
I’m convinced Dr. Nick is the head of medicine for the Nucks.
I really wonder how much interest there is, he looks lost lately and obviously he could be a sniper for a team but is that what teams are adding?
The thing about Boeser is that chemistry with his linemates completely unlocks him. Once he really feels it, he’ll find open pockets of space and skate hard to get there. I have no doubt that he’ll do well with a new team.
I guess that if I'm a GM looking at him as a rental I'd be concerned that the chemistry might not work at least a little bit compared to what the canucks might be asking.
I mean what do fans think he will return?
I mean you can try calling him a 40 goal scorer and a PPG guy but he isn't.
Ilya Mikheyev scored 0 in 60 and didn't have to answer a single question (I know, the ACL, but seriously zero next to Petey?). Loui Eriksson survived in Vancouver for five years. Through the whole Miller feud, Petey was asked one question about it, including zero between the time Rutherford dropped the bombshell interview and JT was traded.
IMac of all people dropping that quote out of nowhere was a surprise (just as surprising as how the soft the question was that started it). Usually it's the radio guys trying to stir the pot for clicks. No one in print has fired any shots since Botch, maybe Drance when the Benning empire crumbled but that was purely at the org.
My take on Pettersson:
Its mostly confidence, but also related to who he's playing with. And probably a bit of nagging injuries here and there (but injuries aren't the main reason).
He seems like someone who is really hard on himself. We've seen this sudden lost of ability before. It happened under Travis Green. And it took him awhile to regain his confidence back, but I remember Boudreau put him with Garland/Podkolzin and then he started to get more chances and moved his feet, and he was back to normal.
I think management doesn't understand this player, they think he's Crosby/Malkin who are true play driving centers, and all you have to do is put pluggers and scorers on their line and it will work.
I believe Pettersson has played his best hockey with either, Miller, Garland, Kuzmenko, all players who are more puck dominant and can hold onto the puck and create something.
Of course the question a lot of fans will naturally have is, can you win with such a player who can lose confidence - another way to say is weak mentally. I guess its a fair question. But I've also seen him play pretty well in the playoffs bubble.
When Petey is on, skillwise he's an elite puck handler with a great shot, high hockey IQ and someone who can defend at Selke level. That combination is rare. Like I've watched canucks hockey since 90s and Petey in terms of skill level is up there with Bure/Hughes.
How are we going to replace him? It might be decades before we draft another forward or dman as skilled as Petey or Hughes.
IMO, there's no question you work with him (medical, sports psychologist, etc) and find players who work well with him. Trading him really should signal a rebuild.
Its mostly confidence, but also related to who he's playing with. And probably a bit of nagging injuries here and there (but injuries aren't the main reason).
He seems like someone who is really hard on himself. We've seen this sudden lost of ability before. It happened under Travis Green. And it took him awhile to regain his confidence back, but I remember Boudreau put him with Garland/Podkolzin and then he started to get more chances and moved his feet, and he was back to normal.
I think management doesn't understand this player, they think he's Crosby/Malkin who are true play driving centers, and all you have to do is put pluggers and scorers on their line and it will work.
I believe Pettersson has played his best hockey with either, Miller, Garland, Kuzmenko, all players who are more puck dominant and can hold onto the puck and create something.
Of course the question a lot of fans will naturally have is, can you win with such a player who can lose confidence - another way to say is weak mentally. I guess its a fair question. But I've also seen him play pretty well in the playoffs bubble.
When Petey is on, skillwise he's an elite puck handler with a great shot, high hockey IQ and someone who can defend at Selke level. That combination is rare. Like I've watched canucks hockey since 90s and Petey in terms of skill level is up there with Bure/Hughes.
How are we going to replace him? It might be decades before we draft another forward or dman as skilled as Petey or Hughes.
IMO, there's no question you work with him (medical, sports psychologist, etc) and find players who work well with him. Trading him really should signal a rebuild.
4 shots on goal this month.
Elias Pettersson has more shots than Elias Pettersson.
- Nov 12, 2021
- 10,444
- 9,391
Blue and Green
Out to lunch
- Dec 17, 2017
- 4,407
- 4,892
- Nov 12, 2021
- 10,444
- 9,391
One last question while I have you hear, would you sign Marner to 14 if he was available?
I heard he prefers to reach out to messier instead of the sedins 
In the end we will prob hold on to him. Hopefully falling out of playoff race and then ltir + rehab works
I see Brock, suter, soucy, forbort and maybe garland/demko gone though
In the end we will prob hold on to him. Hopefully falling out of playoff race and then ltir + rehab works
I see Brock, suter, soucy, forbort and maybe garland/demko gone though
Blue and Green
Out to lunch
- Dec 17, 2017
- 4,407
- 4,892
I wouldn't, no. Draisaitl signed for $14M starting next season and he's clearly better.
Quinning
Registered User
- Mar 18, 2008
- 27,905
- 16,489
I'm convinced that this is a perfect example of why team chemistry is what wins you Stanley Cups. You can have all the talent in the world, but if you don't craft a solid locker room you won't go anywhere. Miller and Pettersson were the worst combination you could possibly have to lead a team. A brash hothead who can't control his temper and a diva.
All of this ultimately goes back to Jim Benning's culture of toxic bullshit. Just purge the franchise of every last piece of his core (excluding Hughes, although he'll want to leave) and start over. They blew their one shot.
All of this ultimately goes back to Jim Benning's culture of toxic bullshit. Just purge the franchise of every last piece of his core (excluding Hughes, although he'll want to leave) and start over. They blew their one shot.
me2
Go ahead foot
kvladimir
Registered User
- Dec 1, 2010
- 1,262
- 819
Been sitting on this idea for a while (and posted it elsewhere) - not a likely deal, obviously, it's too big, too many moving pieces, but just as a thought exercise:
To LAK: Boeser (double retained), Nick Jensen (50%), Mynio, Yakemchuk, conditional '25 2nd (transfers if Boeser does not extend before Jul. 1)
To OTT: Clarke, Hoglander, '25 1st (LAK), 25% retain on Boeser
To VAN: Pinto, Jeannot (immediately flip him, for obvious reasons), '25 2nd (OTT)
Quite a complex deal, so yeah. The rationale breaks down as follows:
For LA: If they really are down on Clarke, now that they have Doughty back, they move him for 2 good adds right now (Boeser and Jensen, despite not having any cap space), and two D prospects tracking extremely well, one LD and one RD, plus a decent pick protection against Boeser leaving.
For OTT: Adding a major piece at RD, at the cost of leveraging a position of strength only if Norris can work at 2C (who is very unlikely to return anywhere near the value he provides if he can stay healthy), and a top prospect (mitigated by getting a top young player at the same position)
For VAN: Leverage cap space, maximize long-term assets at a position of need (top 6 RHC with size) while moving on from Boeser and some draft capital and selling low on a young player who is not a position of need.
All this is a moot point, of course, if LA happens to like Pinto as the main return for Clarke, instead of involving VAN like this. Probably wishful thinking
To LAK: Boeser (double retained), Nick Jensen (50%), Mynio, Yakemchuk, conditional '25 2nd (transfers if Boeser does not extend before Jul. 1)
To OTT: Clarke, Hoglander, '25 1st (LAK), 25% retain on Boeser
To VAN: Pinto, Jeannot (immediately flip him, for obvious reasons), '25 2nd (OTT)
Quite a complex deal, so yeah. The rationale breaks down as follows:
For LA: If they really are down on Clarke, now that they have Doughty back, they move him for 2 good adds right now (Boeser and Jensen, despite not having any cap space), and two D prospects tracking extremely well, one LD and one RD, plus a decent pick protection against Boeser leaving.
For OTT: Adding a major piece at RD, at the cost of leveraging a position of strength only if Norris can work at 2C (who is very unlikely to return anywhere near the value he provides if he can stay healthy), and a top prospect (mitigated by getting a top young player at the same position)
For VAN: Leverage cap space, maximize long-term assets at a position of need (top 6 RHC with size) while moving on from Boeser and some draft capital and selling low on a young player who is not a position of need.
All this is a moot point, of course, if LA happens to like Pinto as the main return for Clarke, instead of involving VAN like this. Probably wishful thinking
Been sitting on this idea for a while (and posted it elsewhere) - not a likely deal, obviously, it's too big, too many moving pieces, but just as a thought exercise:
To LAK: Boeser (double retained), Nick Jensen (50%), Mynio, Yakemchuk, conditional '25 2nd (transfers if Boeser does not extend before Jul. 1)
To OTT: Clarke, Hoglander, '25 1st (LAK), 25% retain on Boeser
To VAN: Pinto, Jeannot (immediately flip him, for obvious reasons), '25 2nd (OTT)
Quite a complex deal, so yeah. The rationale breaks down as follows:
For LA: If they really are down on Clarke, now that they have Doughty back, they move him for 2 good adds right now (Boeser and Jensen, despite not having any cap space), and two D prospects tracking extremely well, one LD and one RD, plus a decent pick protection against Boeser leaving.
For OTT: Adding a major piece at RD, at the cost of leveraging a position of strength only if Norris can work at 2C (who is very unlikely to return anywhere near the value he provides if he can stay healthy), and a top prospect (mitigated by getting a top young player at the same position)
For VAN: Leverage cap space, maximize long-term assets at a position of need (top 6 RHC with size) while moving on from Boeser and some draft capital and selling low on a young player who is not a position of need.
All this is a moot point, of course, if LA happens to like Pinto as the main return for Clarke, instead of involving VAN like this. Probably wishful thinking
So we're trading away Hoglander, Mynio and Brock retained at 25% for Pinto, Jeannot and a 2nd? Gross
You can't have a pick be conditional on a player re-signing. It hasn't been allowed since the new cba went into effect in 2020.Been sitting on this idea for a while (and posted it elsewhere) - not a likely deal, obviously, it's too big, too many moving pieces, but just as a thought exercise:
To LAK: Boeser (double retained), Nick Jensen (50%), Mynio, Yakemchuk, conditional '25 2nd (transfers if Boeser does not extend before Jul. 1)
To OTT: Clarke, Hoglander, '25 1st (LAK), 25% retain on Boeser
To VAN: Pinto, Jeannot (immediately flip him, for obvious reasons), '25 2nd (OTT)
Quite a complex deal, so yeah. The rationale breaks down as follows:
For LA: If they really are down on Clarke, now that they have Doughty back, they move him for 2 good adds right now (Boeser and Jensen, despite not having any cap space), and two D prospects tracking extremely well, one LD and one RD, plus a decent pick protection against Boeser leaving.
For OTT: Adding a major piece at RD, at the cost of leveraging a position of strength only if Norris can work at 2C (who is very unlikely to return anywhere near the value he provides if he can stay healthy), and a top prospect (mitigated by getting a top young player at the same position)
For VAN: Leverage cap space, maximize long-term assets at a position of need (top 6 RHC with size) while moving on from Boeser and some draft capital and selling low on a young player who is not a position of need.
All this is a moot point, of course, if LA happens to like Pinto as the main return for Clarke, instead of involving VAN like this. Probably wishful thinking
