Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, & Fantasy GM | TRADE SZN
- Thread starter Canucks LB
- Start date
Mike Pecarino
Registered User
- Oct 13, 2023
- 852
- 726
I imagine the value on the return on any Pettersson trade scenario hinges on the value of the retention. The more we retain, better the quality of the returning asset. The less we retain the lesser the quality. Being that Aqualini is mostly had it up to there with pay cheques going out to former GM’s who put him in this situation and being done with retaining parts of existing contracts I would assume the less they retain the more likely Aqualini signs off on it. Times are tough.
CloutierForVezina
Registered User
Weekes reported a rumour that Hischier will be re-signing medium term for $11M-$13M. Hischier is a fantastic player, but he's been in the 60s for points in 4 of the last 5 years and has broken 70p exactly once in his career.
Pettersson doesn't need much of a bounceback to look like equal or better value than Hischier at ~$12M. Obviously Petey's contract is ugly as hell when he's putting up 40p, but if he can even get to mid 70s then he starts to have significant positive value as a trade asset with the rising cap.
Giving him away for free right now seems like a completely unforced error and potentially franchise crippling move. If someone knocks your socks off with multiple 1st round picks + prospects, sure, trade him. If someone is offering a cap dump and a 2nd for a retained Petey tell them to pound sand. It's not like we need the cap space, he's not blocking younger prospects from a roster spot, and it's not like his value is going to go lower.
Again, I would just wait. Canucks had a productive powerplay as soon as Rossi was healthy last season, if they can count on that it will restore a lot of production and value to a bunch of players.
Mike Pecarino
Registered User
- Oct 13, 2023
- 852
- 726
Hanging on to Pettersson is probably the best coarse to take with him. Unless they really don’t like his lingering presence soiling what the new management wants to do here - improving “the culture”. Wasn’t it the Sedins who said “Pettersson is in uncoachable”? Regardless it might be the elephant in the room they will have to navigate around, for now.
- Oct 12, 2008
- 79,495
- 42,764
Is 25 too old to target?
I feel it's just outside the range, and he is a UFA next year.
Would need extension assurances.
I feel it's just outside the range, and he is a UFA next year.
Would need extension assurances.
Goatlender
Always the shitty posters who limit their profiles
- Jan 27, 2016
- 11,215
- 14,692
I think Buffalo could get better value than two “what if” assets in that neither D-Petey nor 24th overall have a strong chance of becoming impact players at this point in time.
Byram will also be in his late 20s when this team is ready to make the playoffs. Not the end of the world but not ideal for extending this window.
Agent007
Registered User
- Mar 22, 2006
- 8,016
- 631
StickShift
killerwhaletank
I will say this about Byram:
I don’t think the Canucks should or will pay money to trade for him now.
But I do believe there is a good chance he is a Vancouver Canuck after he becomes a UFA next off-season.
I don’t think the Canucks should or will pay money to trade for him now.
But I do believe there is a good chance he is a Vancouver Canuck after he becomes a UFA next off-season.
Bryam is a bit too all offence, no-defence for me. I don't see the fit with age/ufa status/profile right now.
Edit: Like someone mentioned, you could look at him as a UFA next year depending on how everyone develops.
Edit: Like someone mentioned, you could look at him as a UFA next year depending on how everyone develops.
thecupismine
Registered User
- Apr 1, 2007
- 4,112
- 12,074
Yeah, there's no shot I'd trade for him right now.
However, if he hits free agency, we absolutely should try and make that signing given how much cap room we'll have.
Some of the ideas floated here are not very rebuild-like.
Last edited:
If canucks tear it all down I dont see bryam coming as a ufa. Unless he already knows bedard is going to hold out to come home 
Just A Bit Outside
Playoffs??!
- Mar 6, 2010
- 21,474
- 31,368
You mean trading for Barzal and Byram isn’t the way to go for a rebuild?
Under the previous regime it might have been.
Not under RJ Sedin.
To Florida: Larkin
To Detroit: EP40
To Vancouver: 9th
I believe this is a realistic framework. There would need to be additional pieces to make it work. I think Florida would be happy to get Larkin straight up for the 9thOA. Detroit would not be happy only getting EP40 (unretained) for giving up Larkin. But their hand has been kinda forced. So, what does Vancouver add? The 24 OA seems expensive. Maybe 33? I would prefer to throw in a veteran rather than a pick but I'm not sure Detroit would take on EP40 without retention and another contract. Maybe DOC?
Maybe?
To Florida: Larkin
To Detroit: EP40+DOC
To Vancouver: 9th
To Detroit: EP40
To Vancouver: 9th
I believe this is a realistic framework. There would need to be additional pieces to make it work. I think Florida would be happy to get Larkin straight up for the 9thOA. Detroit would not be happy only getting EP40 (unretained) for giving up Larkin. But their hand has been kinda forced. So, what does Vancouver add? The 24 OA seems expensive. Maybe 33? I would prefer to throw in a veteran rather than a pick but I'm not sure Detroit would take on EP40 without retention and another contract. Maybe DOC?
Maybe?
To Florida: Larkin
To Detroit: EP40+DOC
To Vancouver: 9th
Agreed. And my concern with signing him is that he’s going to get an outsized contract because of that profile. You could sign him and hope that cap inflation makes the deal palatable by the time the team is good again, but the all offence, no defence profile is not one I’d want to bet on as he hits his thirties.
Yeah you don't want to get goaded into paying for counting stats if the player is unable to chew through legit top-4 ES minutes.
He was one of my favourite players to watch and he's just as entertaining as a GM. Appreciate how active he is.
I get not wanting to spend a lot on bad contracts, even though it may cost the team some opportunities.
But now is the time to spend big on the off-ice components of the organization. A practice facility is obvious, but there was a time under Gillis when the franchise was known for innovation and the willingness to spend on competitive advantages.
Rebuilding the culture isn't purely an on-ice thing. The organizational culture needs a reset as well, and money needs to be spent to show players and agents that the Canucks are a serious organization singularly focused on creating the best possible environment.
It's easy for me to say when it's not my money, but imo, pulling back now is shortsighted. Have the organization in tip top shape when the on-ice product is ready to step back into contention and you're trying to lure players (Bedard?) to this city.
Did Frankie not see himself at the bottom of the ownership rankings?
A little promising in that the assumption is an asset needs to be attached.
I'd previously heard suggestions that the Canucks would have to give up something, which imo is a non-starter.
Not opposed to trading him for the right offer (ie not just dumping the contract but getting value).
But, I'm also curious to see what Manny might be able to do with him.
SJS making all sorts of interesting bits at very low cost. Gasseau seems like what you'd hope for in a 4th/5th rounder that has developed well.
